Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered on Monday 9 March at Seven o'clock.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 12 March.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 9 March at Seven o'clock.

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Animal Welfare

Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent initiatives he has announced concerning animal welfare.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I intend to make animal welfare one of my priorities in the United Kingdom presidency, as I made clear when I wrote to hon. Members on 27 February.
The Government are promoting action on animal welfare in the European Community, based on the high standards in this country.

Mr. Burns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that Britain is at the forefront of those countries in Europe that are pressing for improved animal welfare. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that other EC countries emulate our far-reaching rules and regulations to ensure that there is a total ban on veal crates throughout the Community and that the transportation of live animals, particularly horses and ponies, inside the European continent is as stringently controlled as it is in this country under our domestic rules and regulations.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that, both on veal crates and pig stalls and tethers, the rest of Europe will have to come up to our standards. I am pleased that we have achieved what most people thought that we could not—we have stopped and will continue to stop the export of live horses and ponies. I congratulate all hon. Members on the support that they have given to the Government in fighting that battle. I do not believe that this is a nationalist issue. Horses and ponies in the rest of Europe must have the same sort of protection as they do in this country. I am pleased that the standards on the transport of live animals generally are approaching British standards and are no longer the low standards that once obtained.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is great concern about the quarantine restrictions being lifted on 1 April. Will he clarify the position on pets and dogs? What are the latest developments on foot and mouth in European countries?

Mr. Gummer: We have managed to get the rest of Europe to come up to our standards, get rid of vaccination and introduce a slaughter policy in relation to foot and mouth disease. We already allow animals from countries that have the same policy as us, such as Ireland, to be imported into this country. When the rest of Europe reaches the same standards as us, the same rules will apply. Quite rightly, once we have won the battle to raise everyone's standards so that we all have the same high levels, we can have a single market. We have said clearly that we shall not accept changes in the rules on rabies unless we can have at least the same safeguards as we have today. But we are perfectly prepared to look at scientific evidence—we are not afraid of that. However, we will not make changes unless they benefit the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the support and praise of all horse lovers for what the Government achieved when securing the continuation of minimum conditions for the export of live horses for slaughter? Will he, however, assure us that he will do all that he can to secure proper transport arrangements for live animals being exported, particularly horses? Will he further assure the House that the same strict safeguards and enforcement of rules on the protection and welfare or horses and other animals that apply in our country will apply in the EC area?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured at Maastricht that the British proposals on this matter were passed: first, all countries committed themselves to improving animal welfare, which was a major step forward never agreed between those countries before; and, secondly, in future, the European Court of Justice will be in a position to fine countries that fail to keep their obligations under Community rules. During our presidency we must extend the competence of the


Community so that it can ensure that once animal welfare regulations are passed they are enforced—from Spain to Scotland and from Ireland to Greece.

Mr. Ron Davies: Let me assure the Minister that Labour fully intends to use the opportunities presented by Britain's presidency to make sure that animal welfare is high on the agenda.
Why is the Minister so inconsistent in his approach to animal welfare? On 11 February, he told the National Farmers Union that he had no intention of taking further steps unilaterally, but on 27 February he put out a press release saying that he did reserve the right to act unilaterally. Can he explain that contradiction, or is he just a politician running scared of the electorate and trying to be all things to all people?

Mr. Gummer: It is always dangerous when the hon. Gentleman reads only the first half of a sentence. I told the National Farmers Union that I did not believe that unilateral action would help, because if it is taken, the British housewife tends to buy the cheaper product from the rest of Europe and, therefore, we export animal welfare problems to the rest of Europe. I believe that we should not be nationalistic about animal welfare; we should care for animals in France and Germany as well as for those in Britain.
I said to the NFU and in my press statement that I reserved the right to take emergency action if, for instance, people in this country started to use coloured lenses for chickens, which would be outrageous—I would stop it before it started. That is a perfectly coherent position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress today. Could we please have brief questions and briefer answers?

Food Safety

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The Food Safety Act is working very effectively improving the quality of our food and giving consumers confidence in the integrity of the food supply.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the full implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990 will ensure that Britain is in the forefront of Europe in terms of food safety in years to come? Will he reassure representatives of women's institutes and townswomen's guilds and other voluntary workers that the implementation of the Act is not designed to target their fund-raising activities in the preparation of food in village halls and elsewhere?

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks, in which he recognised the great step forward that we have taken with the Food Safety Act, but I am concerned about his latter comments. There is nothing in the Food Safety Act that could justify local authorities specially targeting those organisations. The advice of the Government and the Audit Commission is to concentrate

on the main risks, and if town halls persist in targeting women's institutes, church fetes, village halls or charity teas, the Government will take action.

Potatoes

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the level of production of potatoes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Estimated potato production in the United Kingdom in 1991 was 6·3 million tonnes.

Mr. Cohen: Does not a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report show that production of early potatoes fell considerably, and that meant an increase in price? Is not it the case that we do not have widely available anywhere near the diversity of potatoes that is available in other countries, such as the United States? Is not this subject wholly appropriate for the Minister, because his Government have had their chips?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has his facts diametrically wrong. There are 131 varieties of commercial potatoes in the United Kingdom, which is a great deal more than in any other country. I know that because I grow at least a dozen of them in my allotment.

Mr. Moss: I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the widespread concern among arable farmers in my constituency about the EC Commission's proposals to review potato marketing. As the Potato Marketing Board has for many years worked successfully for the benefit of processors, consumers and producers, does he agree that any proposals to scrap the PMB should be strongly resisted?

Mr. Curry: The Potato Marketing Board is doing an excellent job, and we fully support it. Changes introduced a couple of years ago are working well and the aggressive marketing that is now taking place is very much to be desired. We have to face the European proposals and we shall tackle them as we tackle all other European proposals—in the interests of British farmers and British consumers.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his European agricultural colleagues to discuss reforming the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Gummer: At the next Agriculture Council on 30 and 31 March.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that reform of the common agricultural policy—which costs £25 billion a year, consumes 65 per cent. of the Community budget and costs the average British family £17 per week—would be assisted by the introduction of an organic farming policy? Does he recall that more than two years ago he announced that an organic scheme would be introduced in a matter of months? What on earth has happened to that scheme?

Mr. Gummer: As I have said, the European Community has failed to produce the legislation under which we could do that. I have made it clear that the reform must include


legislation enabling us to do that. We have led the way in organic farming, both by the introduction of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards and by ensuring that European standards follow British standards. The hon. Gentleman's figures on the payment per family are not correct. One issue that is particularly damaging is the decision by the Labour party that if it were in power it would tax British farmers and give the money to the farmers of Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Mr. Marland: It is good to give credit where credit is due. Is my hon. Friend aware that he has earned the widespread respect of British farmers by standing up for their interests? Furthermore they know that they can trust him because he will not filch money from the common agricultural policy, as Labour would do, to use it for other purposes. Will he confirm that he does not stand alone in the European Community but that other countries support his firm stand?

Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to say that more and more European Community countries are coming to the views that we have pioneered on reform. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has announced that he would take money from British farmers and contribute it to those in southern Europe. That is the wrong way to use common agricultural policy reforms.

Dr. David Clark: After all these years in office, does not the Minister yet understand that the British consumer simply cannot afford the exorbitant cost of the CAP, which does not exactly help the British farmer either? Has not he realised that the CAP is the only agricultural support system under which consumers pay a subsidy to farmers and end up paying more for their food than if they had not paid the subsidy in the first place? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in his swan song at the Dispatch Box, admit that not only has he been the most expensive Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, supporting an increase in CAP spending of 55 per cent., but that, by his failure to get meaningful reform of the CAP, he has been the most unsuccessful one, as well?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is in no position to make any of those comments. His party has now signed up to Mr. MacSharry and his basic philosophy. The Leader of the Opposition has said in the House that CAP reform would mean that he would take money from British farmers and spend it on farmers in southern countries. That has been contradicted by the Labour spokesman on Treasury matters, who has said that his party would take money from British farmers and divert it to regional policy. That has been contradicted by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who has said that he would take money from British farmers with one hand and give part of it back to them with the other. It is the usual example of the Labour party spending money that it does not have and will not get. It proposes to do so three times, and those from whom the money would come would not get any benefit.

Mr. Hume: Is the Minister aware that the Commissioner for Agriculture is now the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development? A major part of the reform of the CAP is focused on rural development, and that is important for less-favoured areas where there are smaller farms. What steps has the Ministry taken to encourage farmers in those areas to consider alternative

land use and to recognise that agriculture policy is no longer about prices only but embraces rural development, rural housing and rural agriculture that is based on their products? Is there a planned approach by the Government to make maximum use of such a policy to develop employment in the poorer rural areas?

Mr. Gummer: Yes, certainly. We oppose Mr. MacSharry's proposals because hardly any farmers will be able to gain by his support for rural development. To Mr. MacSharry, rural development means no help for the farmers of Wales and more help for the farmers of southern Ireland. It means no help for the farmers of Scotland and more help for the farmers of Portugal and Bavaria. That is a divisive policy, not a rural development policy, which would affect countries and areas of the European Community. That is why we oppose it.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British farmer is the most efficient farmer in Europe? Does he agree also that the MacSharry proposals will have an extremely damaging effect on the British farmer? Will he do everything to ensure that the recent announcement by the European Community, which reflects the attitude of the French and those who agree with them in respect of the general agreement on tariffs and trade proposals, will not be immensely damaging to British farming and world trade as a whole? Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?

Mr. Gummer: It is most important that we have a GATT solution. Britain, together with most of our partners, made sure that the next step towards that was taken on Monday. The French and one or two other countries were outvoted on that issue.
It is clear that, increasingly, other countries in the Community are supporting our view on CAP reform. That is why they refuse to accept the Commission type of document that was presented on Monday and Tuesday and have demanded that we look back once again at the fundamental and basic principle. The principles that we want are no discrimination, a closer approach to the market, consideration of more environmental matters at the centre of the European Community and a sensible CAP that is designed to support efficient farmers and the proper backing of the rural economy.

MacSharry Proposals

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the implications for United Kingdom agriculture of the MacSharry proposals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: The GATT round is regularly discussed at the Agriculture Council and I expect it to be considered again at the Council on 30 and 31 March.

Mr. Kennedy: The Minister obviously recognises that there is continuing concern, not least in Scottish agriculture, including north of Scotland agriculture, about the likely effect of the MacSharry proposals as presently cast. Does he agree that Scottish agriculture, including north of Scotland agriculture, can hardly have been—

Several Hon. Members: The Minister gave the wrong answer.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to apologise.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked about the MacSharry proposals. The Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP would discriminate heavily against United Kingdom agriculture. That is why I continue to seek an outcome to the negotiations which is fair for British farmers and encourages, not discourages, efficiency. I hope that the GATT solution will help that as well.

Mr. Kennedy: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those two issues are closely connected, but I should like the Minister to say a little more about the specific question that I raised.
Given their less-favoured area status, Scottish and north of Scotland agriculture can hardly be said to have contributed to the problems of CAP overproduction and the related MacSharry implications. What is the Minister's guess in regard to a possible deadline for a conclusion to the MacSharry discussions—not least in the context of the GATT negotiations that must follow?

Mr. Gummer: It is important to secure the GATT solution first, if we are to have one. That must be done within a reasonable period. Until we know what we have signed up to in GATT, it will be difficult to tell how much we must alter the CAP to meet our obligations. Many alterations will have to be made in any event, and there is no question of CAP reform depending on the GATT solution.
The timetable will, I hope, mean a rapid solution to the CAP problem very soon after the achievement of a GATT solution. I hope that it will come about under the Portuguese presidency, and I am working towards that end; but it must be an end that does not discriminate against Scottish farmers or British farmers generally. I shall keep the process going until we achieve a fair solution.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend continue his robust and effective opposition to the MacSharry proposals? Will he bring home to Ministers on the continent the fact that the headage basis would prove devastating for hill and upland farmers in the United Kingdom and will he do everything possible to make those Ministers see our point of view?

Mr. Gummer: The Spanish, Dutch, Danish and Belgian Ministers have now committed themselves to the view that such discrimination is unacceptable. That is a great improvement, and I hope very much that the Commission will soon understand that headage limits do not reduce overproduction but merely discriminate against some of the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the farmers concerned—especially those in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the backbone of England—suffer particularly from the low prices.

Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister realise the damage that the current MacSharry proposals will do to family farms in my constituency, Vale of Glamorgan? Does he share the concern that I now feel, following my recent meeting with MacSharry, that any MacSharry proposals that include price support will penalise our farmers?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the danger of MacSharry's proposals, particularly in areas such as Wales, which are so

dependent on farmers who are not big farmers in the general sense of the term but who need the support that they now have. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will explain to the Leader of the Opposition that Welsh farmers could not afford to have their incomes cuts so that the money could be spent on Spanish, Greek and Portuguese farmers. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he would do if he were Prime Minister.

GATT

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he expects to have talks with other European Ministers about GATT.

Mr. Gummer: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Rathbone: In anticipation of the meeting of the Agriculture Council, will my right hon. Friend re-commit the Government to the search for an equitable basis on which to reduce farm prices within the European Community and worldwide and to reduce trade barriers as well?

Mr. Gummer: I am wholly concerned to fight for the achievement of an equitable GATT solution as rapidly as possible. It must be a solution that reduces prices across the board, not only equitably throughout Europe but in the United States. This is a proper negotiation, in which both sides will have to give ground if we are to achieve a solution. I look to the current discussions, and also to the United States, to give the ground that is needed.

Mr. Edwards: What reassurance can the Minister give the dairy farmers of Monmouthshire that during his discussions on GATT their interests will be protected? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those farmers have seen a decline in their incomes and an increase in their costs, and are worried about their capacity to invest in the future? What reassurance can he give them that they will be able to invest in dairy production in Monmouthshire?

Mr. Gummer: The reassurance is that there will be a Conservative Government to fight for them, and that after the next election they will be represented by a Conservative Member for Monmouth.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Pursuant to the reply that the Minister gave earlier to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), and as there has been much speculation that there will be no GATT settlement at all this year, will the Minister confirm that, should there be no GATT settlement, he will oppose the MacSharry proposals for the rest of this year?

Mr. Gummer: If there is no GATT settlement, during our presidency we shall seek to achieve the necessary reform of the common agricultural policy. That reform will be based not on the discriminatory attitudes of Mr. MacSharry but on a sensible policy of supporting agriculture fairly throughout the Community, bringing agriculture closer to the market and ensuring that the environment is a central concern of the CAP. It will also ensure that economic farmers are enabled to compete throughout the world. There will have to be specific help for those in the least favoured areas, and particular help for restructuring in the southern countries of Europe.

Mr. Favell: It is reported on the front page of The Times today that the common agricultural policy—that squalid policy which is costing British families an average of £18·50 a week each—will destroy the world free trade talks, which have been going on for four or five years, and involve just about every country in the world. Is it not clear, in retrospect, that our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was absolutely right when she went to Rome in October 1990 and warned our partners that the talks should be about world free trade, and not about cloud cuckoo land—that is, political and economic union, which was doomed to failure in any event?

Mr. Gummer: The fact is that The Times report is not correct. The second fact is that there has been a great deal of obfuscation and obstruction from the United States in the negotiations. It is wholly wrong to suggest that it is the European Community alone which has difficulties with the agriculture dossier. We must both find a way through this, and I demand that we in this country support the Commission in its negotiations, demanding that the United States come further towards us, so that together we can find a solution for the whole world, instead of throwing batons at each other across the Atlantic.

Dietary Supplements

Mr. Hain: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on European Community proposals to restrict the availability of dietary supplements.

Mr. Maclean: The Government will support the continuing availability of safe and clearly labelled products in the forthcoming EC negotiations.

Mr. Hain: The Government propose to Brussels that the same upper limits be set on dosages of dietary supplements for ordinary consumers buying off the shelves as for professional practitioners of alternative medicine, even though such practitioners may have good reasons for recommending higher doses to their patients. Surely the Government should exempt them. Otherwise, 18 million people who depend on food supplements—including healthy eaters such as yourself, Mr. Speaker—will be discriminated against.

Mr. Maclean: I entirely reject that suggestion. To suggest, as do other countries in the European Community, and the Commission itself, that there could be maximum daily doses of individual tablets prescribed, is not incompatible with saying that the products will continue to be freely available to all those who wish to use them.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no proposals to set up some absurd bureaucratic organisation to tell farmers what bureaucrats think that people ought to eat, as is proposed by the Labour party?

Mr. Maclean: I entirely agree. The more I read about Opposition policy the more convinced I am that if they were in government there would be no food left to eat in this country. They would adopt ridiculous food safety measures.

Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that early payments are made to farmers in respect of hill livestock compensatory allowances in response to the current economic climate.

Mr. Curry: Payments to farmers under the 1992 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme have already begun. That will put nearly £150 million into the rural economy.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that there is already considerable delay in these payments? As the farming community has suffered a substantial reduction in real income in 1991—to the extent of 17 per cent. of income in the north of Ireland—and that the hill livestock farmer depends very much on such payments at this time of year, will he ensure that these payments and other headage payments are made in accordance with the rules and regulations and thus assist the distraught financial circumstances especially of the small farmer who has been paid scant regard in the House this afternoon?

Mr. Curry: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have been paying them in England since 21 February and virtually a third of claims have been met. It is the same in Wales. Almost a third have been met in Northern Ireland and £17.4 million has already been paid out. We cannot pay if farmers do not make the claims. In previous years about 20 per cent. have not claimed until April. If the hon. Gentleman will urge his farmers to ensure that claims are on time, we shall deal with them as soon as humanly possible.

Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend accept that the good farmers of Hexham are grateful for his sincere effort to look after the interests of farmers in the less-favoured areas? However, does he also accept that they are worried about two things—first, proposals to put 50p on a gallon of petrol and, secondly, proposals for environment controls which would strangle them to death—proposals made by the Opposition parties?

Mr. Curry: I speak to many farmers—large and small —including some in my hon. Friend's constituency. They are terrified by Labour party proposals to create a great new machine spitting out red tape all over the countryside. Labour's planning controls and proposals for access would be directly contrary to the interests of farmers in the United Kingdom.

Citizens Charter

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Ministry's contribution to the citizens charter.

Mr. Maclean: We are developing citizens charter principles in various sectors of the Ministry and, as part of that, I am today announcing a comprehensive food safety and consumer protection programme.

Dr. Howells: It is difficult to understand how the Government can claim to be concerned about looking after the welfare of citizens when there has been a fourfold


increase in the incidence of food poisoning in the past 10 years. Why do the Government continue to extol the virtues of this obnoxious Gummerburger food culture instead of instituting an independent food standards agency as the Labour Government will do in a few weeks' time?

Mr. Maclean: It used to be that Opposition spokesmen quoted figures that were four years out of date, but the hon. Gentleman depends on statistics that go back 10 years. Let me tell him about the previous 12 months' statistics which increase in the incidence of food poisoning in the past 10 years. Why do the show a decrease in salmonella food poisoning and that the Food Safety Act 1990 is working. For the first time in many years the statistics are going down. I note that the first thing that the Labour party would do in my Department, if it came to power, would be to change the name of MAFF to FAFF.

Mr. Lord: On food safety, my hon. Friend will be aware of the crippling effect of veterinary inspection charges on chicken-producing companies such as John Rannoch and Sovereign Chicken in my constituency, which are making it impossible for them to compete with their European counterparts. Will he please take the most urgent steps to correct that, because it is not only deeply damaging to companies in my constituency but harmful to the image of the Community?

Mr. Maclean: We shall do our utmost to ensure that we have a level playing field throughout Europe. If my hon. Friend has any evidence that other countries might not be implementing the regulations as carefully as we are, we shall certainly take action. However, at the same time I must say that we have very high welfare and hygiene standards in this country. That guarantees that the consumer feels safe with our food supply and that is in the best interests of all our chicken producers.

D. David Clark: If the Minister claims to be so concerned about the consumer, can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting last month, produced a list of nearly 100 regulations from the Ministry and promised to discuss their relevance and implementation with the farmers? Why does he refuse to meet any groups other than farmers, as he confirmed to me in the House on 17 February? Why does he refuse to discuss the regulations on the welfare of animals in transit with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Why does he refuse to discuss the reduction of salmonella controls with the consumer organisations? Why does he refuse to talk to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about licensing to kill birds? It is not the citizens charter that the consumers of this country want; they want a Ministry of Food and Farming which the incoming Labour Government will introduce.

Mr. Maclean: That is absolute nonsense and it is nonsense that is years out of date. Only last week my right hon. Friend concluded yet another of his quarterly meetings with 15 consumer organisations. Those meetings are held every quarter to discuss issues of food and consumer concern. We have set up the consumer panel and I meet consumers regularly when I have discussions in the Ministry. Never before has the Ministry of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food had so many detailed discussions with consumers and consumer organisations. They know that; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mrs. Gorman: Knowing my right hon. Friend's concern for birds and particularly for our very valuable poultry industry, will he keep an eye on the latest scare for our "bootiful" turkey industry and ensure that that nonsense about which we are hearing—podo dermatitus—does not turn out to be a load of gobbledegook?

Mr. Maclean: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to spot gobbledegook whenever it arises. I assure her that we are having discussions in Europe on various aspects of animal health and welfare. However, there is no intention to include turkeys in the EC's zoonoses proposals and that seems to be very sensible.

Set-aside Schemes

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account he takes of proposals for public access to the areas concerned when considering set-aside schemes and schemes relating to environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Gummer: Considerations concerning public access do not feature in either of these schemes. Separate grants for providing public access to set-aside land are available in certain counties under the Countryside Commission premium scheme, a scheme which, in the reform of the common agricultural policy, we hope will have the powers to extend to the rest of the country.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the Ramblers Association has published a manifesto for access? Will the Government endorse that manifesto? Will the Government support the Common Land Forum in its proposals? If they are re-elected, is there any chance that such proposals will be carried out this time?

Mr. Gummer: The Government are determined to ensure that the kind of access proposals that have been pioneered, particularly by the Countryside Commission, are extended. However, we recognise that the countryside is also a place for conservation, for bird lovers, for agriculture and for a whole range of people. Access is not the only requisite in the countryside. We have to keep a proper balance or we will continue to see destruction in the countryside that we have seen in some areas where there is too much access and where what used to be a path has become as wide as the M1.

Milk Marketing

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the Milk Marketing Board's proposals for changes in the milk marketing scheme,

Mr. Gummer: I have received a number of representations from milk producers and processors, hon. Members and members of the public.

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is putting forward and considering proposals for reform. I notice that the Milk Marketing Board has come forward with propositions. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that any changes in the milk marketing regulations are


introduced in an orderly manner? There are a very large number of cows munching in the green pastures of my constituency, but there are also a large number of people who are employed by the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Gummer: The Milk Marketing Board has produced proposals for reform. When the Government are re-elected, they will enable the Milk Marketing Board to carry forward those proposals as far as possible through the Commission and through the House. They will do that because the Milk Marketing Board has put forward those proposals for reform. I note that the Labour party knows better than the Milk Marketing Board and has said that it would not help the Milk Marketing Board to get the reform that is necessary for British farmers and British consumers. Recently, British milk producers have received less for their milk than most of the other countries in Europe, and the housewife has paid more for milk on the doorstep than housewives in Europe. The Milk Marketing Board wants to improve that situation. The Labour party will make sure that it could not.

National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss fishing matters.

Mr. Curry: I am constantly meeting fishing organisations.

Mr. Mitchell: When the Minister next meets them, will he tell them why he stood on his head over a decommissioning—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mitchell: Why he stood on his head over a decommissioning scheme which is too little, too late? [Interruption.] Will the Minister tell them how he proposes to cut the days-at-sea restriction by introducing effective conservation measures, including a one-net rule, square mesh panels and a ban on industrial fishing? Will he tell them why, if there is to be a days-at-sea restriction, he cannot pay fishermen the same financial support that farmers get when their land goes awry?

Mr. Curry: The industry demanded a proper conservation package. That is what it has. It has a combination of decommissioning; we are extending the licensing rules; we are attacking the problem of the effort directed against fishing; and we are going to control fishing boats. In other words, we have delivered precisely what we promised—a measure which would guarantee the long-term future of the fishing industry. We remain committed to that. Happily, we will have many years to carry it out.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings

with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mitchell: As the Prime Minister savours one of his last few busy days before the deluge, will he think back to the dinner that he gave at No. 10 Downing street last November on behalf of the Tory party [Interruption.] for what The Sun—I must quote it accurately because it is from The Sun—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No quoting; paraphrase, please.

Mr. Mitchell: In that case, I will paraphrase, Mr. Speaker. For The Sun told us of members of Britain's Asian community being brought together to win the votes of that community. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nine of his 21 guests were tax exiles in this country who cannot even vote here? Will he also confirm that he was able to tell them that the loophole in the tax law which enables them to pay virtually no tax in this country will not be closed by his Government? Finally, will he tell us whether they were asked—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a terrible long question.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and I will set out the position clearly for him. I give a number of dinners for industrialists at Downing street, and the dinner for business men was no different. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I should not have such occasions with business men. He also shows his usual willingness to exploit every leak that comes to him. He may care now to listen carefully.
What I said on that occasion was to confirm a policy agreed with the hon. Gentleman's own party. He has obviously forgotten that the Government decided not to introduce a tax on world income in 1989, following consultation and representations from the Labour party.

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the encouragement of savings is important not simply because it gives security to the saver but because it provides funds for investment in the future of our country? Will he give an assurance that a future Conservative Government will take measures further to encourage savings? Will he condemn the narrow-minded and vindictive savings tax proposed by the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I shall happily do both those things. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We shall continue to encourage personal savings by keeping income tax rates low, and through special schemes such as the tax-exempt special savings account, which has been a remarkable success. The savings tax proposed by the Labour party is one of the most poorly thought out and damaging of its proposals. It would hit widows on ordinary incomes. It would hit people taking early retirement such as miners, policemen and soldiers. Now that the Labour party has finally decided to publish its phoney budget, it should think again and drop those damaging and vindictive proposals.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning the University College hospital cancer specialist, Dr. Jeffrey Tobias, said:
30 per cent. of the time I have to say to my patients, 'Sorry, I had planned to give you chemotherapy today but that is not possible—
because the beds are not available? Does not the Prime Minister think that that is a terrible indictment of the health policy of a Government who have been in power so long and could have made things so much better?

The Prime Minister: But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, things have been made much better. Waiting lists are improving—are falling. More people are being treated and there are more resources for the national health service. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to swap quotes, perhaps he will listen to what Dr. David Colin Thorne, a Labour party member who stood for Parliament, said on fundholding. He said:
I'm aware that what we're saying may be used … but we do believe … it is the most energising thing that has happened in my 21 years as a GP … It has been good for care, public health and management.
That is a Labour party former candidate, a doctor, supporting our Conservative party reforms of the health service.

Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister never even try to answer the question? The reality is that cancer specialists are unable to treat patients because of a shortage of beds. Why do not the Government even now get rid of the tax concessions for private health insurance and put the £60 million saved straight into fighting cancer? That is what the Labour Government will do. That is the right thing to do.

The Prime Minister: That would have more credibility if we were not spending more on the health service than the right hon. Gentleman even promised to spend. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party was not pledged to introduce a minimum wage that would cost the health service £500 million. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party would claim and set out the funding that it would provide for the national health service, which it has expressly failed to do. We have repeatedly indicated in public expenditure round after public expenditure round that we are increasing over and above inflation substantial resources for the health service —far more even than the right hon. Gentleman dared to promise.

Mr. Kinnock: Just in recent weeks we have had public reports of a cardiologist who has had to turn seriously ill patients away because of the budget system—[Interruption.] I am telling the truth about the health—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. to put his question. Member has a right to put his question.

Mr. Kinnock: We have had other public reports of closed accident and emergency units. We have had public reports of a mortally ill little girl being unable to gain treatment in a paediatric intensive care unit. Now we have a physician reporting that he cannot treat 30 per cent. of his cancer patients because of a lack of beds. Why does not the Prime Minister address those issues of life and death instead of parading false claims about his Government?

The Prime Minister: We have addressed those issues. That is why the waiting lists are falling by record amounts at this moment. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the test for our new health service reforms set by his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The standard test. The hon. Gentleman invented it. He asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether he was prepared to measure the success by the simple test of whether the trusts did more or less work for the national health service. They have done more work. During the first six months of operations English trusts treated 6·5 per cent. more patients than in the months before they became managed. They have treated 5 per cent. more out-patients. That is the Cook test, not mine. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the launching of the first Trident submarine yesterday, and the fact that three more are under construction, is the minimum insurance policy that the country can afford to accept in a dangerous and uncertain world? Does he further agree that, at this critical time of ordering, building and commissioning that submarine fleet, we should not pay attention to the recommendations of the two main Opposition parties, whose opinion appears to vary, not merely from day to day, but from hour to hour?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about defence and we have no intention of gambling with this country's defence. My hon. Friend is also right about the Opposition's position on Trident. They have said that they would order it, they have said that they would not order it, and they have even suggested that they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. Frankly, one has no idea what they will say next on defence. This morning the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that Labour
have nothing whatsoever to do with CND. We have no connection with CND.
What can he have meant? According to the chairman of CND more than 100 Members still belonged to it late last year. Have they all resigned? Have they all let their membership lapse?

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: The Prime Minister has made much of the citizens charter and the need for openness in Government. Does he realise that many of our citizens would like to know whether and how much Mr. Vijau Mallya, an Indian millionaire, and Mr. Adam Polemos, a Greek shipping magnate, contributed to the funds of the Conservative party?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.

Mr. Wareing: Will the Prime Minister emulate the Labour party by publishing the accounts of the Conservative party, so that citizens of this country may know the truth before the general election, about who donates to the finances of the Tory party?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult to take that seriously from someone whose party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. According to Labour's own figures, in 1987 the Transport and General Workers Union gave more money to the Labour party than the whole of industry gave to the Tory party, and it gets votes for it, even on the leadership of the party.

Mr. Moss: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Moss: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the reaction of the CBI to the proposal for a national minimum wage? Has he seen its estimates, which suggest that it would increase business costs by an extra £50 million and cut 150,000 jobs? Does he agree that to propose such a policy at this time is the economics of the mad house and that the Labour party should stop it at once?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I have read reports of the CBI's views. The Labour party claims that it listens to the views of business. The views of the CBI could scarcely be clearer than they have been on the subject of the minimum wage. As I said a moment ago, even in the national health service that policy would cost £400 million to £500 million a year. I wonder what the Labour party would cut elsewhere in the health service to make up for that loss of revenue.

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: The crime rate in the United Kingdom is the highest ever, the detection rate is the lowest ever and our prisons are the fullest ever. Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks that deplorable situation exists?

The Prime Minister: I shall take lectures from the hon. Gentleman when he and the Labour party support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

Mr. John Browne: I offer my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the crucial personal role that he played in securing compensation for the three injured Grenadiers. Will he now look personally into the cases of some other very obvious cases of severe injuries to service men, in particular those of Mark Booth and Andy Konalyck of the Parachute Regiment and Martin Ketterick of the Royal Marines? In those obvious cases, they have not been compensated properly because they were not covered due to a lapse of cover in the law. Surely, it is time that some form of flexibility was introduced into the compensation legislation for armed services personnel who are severely injured in the course of their duties.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He knows that wide-ranging compensation schemes are available. I will certainly ask to see the details of the cases that he mentioned.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the people of Scotland vote for independence, Scotland will become an equal partner with England in the European Community?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Lady is unwise to assume that Scotland will react as she proposes, but in any event, were that unlikely event to occur, Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the European Community. Every member state would have a vote on that application. The United Kingdom's existing membership of the European Community would continue, but Scotland would have to apply.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Leader of the House make a statement about the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill.
Debate on a motion to approve the report of the Accommodation and Works Committee in respect of the new parliamentary building (phase 2) (House of Commons Paper 269-I).
Motions on the Social Security (Class I Contributions—Contracted-out Percentages) Order and the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 10 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY II MARCH and THURSDAY 12 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 13 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 16 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.

Mr. Hattersley: As the Government have already told the broadcasting authorities that they will announce the general election next Wednesday, how does the Leader of the House justify making a business statement which he knows to be wholly fictitious? The Government are ending their term of office in exactly the same shabby way that they have conducted themselves during the past 13 years.

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman began with a fictitious comment: the Government have done no such thing.

Mr. John Greenway: Will the Leader of the House tell us what progress he expects to be made in the other place on the Asylum Bill? Is he aware that yesterday members of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who are considering the policing of European Community frontiers, visited Gatwick airport and witnessed no fewer than 30 men, women and children who had come from Casablanca, who were supposedly in transit at Gatwick airport, claiming political asylum? The immigration authorities at the airport made it clear that, if the provisions of the Asylum Bill were in place, that kind of incident would not recur. Can my right hon. Friend explain why there is such opposition from the Labour party to that essential Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the particular cases that my hon. Friend mentions. On the generality of the issue, I believe that the vast majority of people in this country want to see the Asylum Bill in place as quickly as possible. That is why the Opposition are entirely wrong to be opposing parts of that Bill. I assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to get the Asylum Bill, whatever the opposition from hon. Members opposite, on to the statute book as soon as we can.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Leader of the House come clean and say that he will make another statement next week about the general election? Is he telling the House this afternoon that he will not make such a statement? In other words, will he deny that he will not be making a statement next week?

Mr. MacGregor: My job today, as always, is to announce the business for next week, and I expect to be making a business statement next week as usual.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate soon on the renegotiation of the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is a matter of considerable importance to United Kingdom agriculture, the farming industry and all those involved in rural areas, in addition to such industries as textiles and clothing, which need support from the House as a vital part of the nation's economy?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the GATT Uruguay round. In view of some of the rumours circulating today about the death of the Uruguay round, I must say, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that those rumours have been greatly exaggerated. Only on Monday of this week, European Community Trade and Agriculture Ministers reiterated that an early, positive conclusion to the round is vital for the international community. That continues to be our view. As for when we might have a debate, I would obviously wish to have one at the appropriate time.

Mr. Peter Shore: Next week's business is rather more important than the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. May we have a guarantee that for the Budget, which is probably one of the most important Budgets to be placed before the nation because we have seldom been in such a grievous economic situation, we shall have four full days of debate? May we also have an assurance—will the right hon. Gentleman give his word—that he is not deliberately deceiving the House today?

Mr. MacGregor: I am certainly not deliberately deceiving the House today. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that next week's business is extremely important. I agree that it will be a very important, and, I am sure, a very good, Budget. But I totally disagree with his assessment of the economic situation. As a result of so much that has been done to strengthen the economy in the past 10 years, I believe that, as we move out of the world recession, the British economy will be in a more competitive state than it has been for a very long time. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under a Government of whom he was a member, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to go cap in hand to the IMF to bale us out.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on education? During that debate we could perhaps mention the visit of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to St. George's school, Gravesend, a grant-maintained school, where he did not noticeably tell the parents that he would overrule their vote by nine to one to become a grant-maintained school and claw their funds back to the centre of bureaucracy and away from the school, where they deserve to be spent.

Mr. MacGregor: I would like to oblige my hon. Friend with a debate next week. I am glad that he raised the point, because he has re-emphasised that, not only in Gravesend but right across the country, parents are voting strongly for grant-maintained schools. There is a big demand for places in them and we are seeing an increasing number of them. As always in education, the Labour party would deprive them of that choice.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House say whether failing to announce legislation to change the requirements for registering candidatures for Parliament reflects the fact that the Government have moved away from that foolish ploy, bearing in mind the fact that we are all equal in this place and that for 20 years we have been putting our names—and our addresses—forward for election? Also, may I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to urge the Chancellor to have better news on Tuesday for the British shipping industry?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, I cannot comment today on what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say on Tuesday. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me to consider the question of electoral addresses and there has been support for them from elsewhere. I have been consulting the various parties in the House on the matter and we are now consulting more widely to assess Members views. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments in that context.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on early-day motion 785?
[That this House, noting that the Manor House Hospital is independent of the National Health Service; that the 1979 TUC Conference called for the Manor House Hospital to be absorbed into the National Health Service and Or all affiliated unions as a matter of principle to discontinue any relationship with the Manor House Hospital; that it is Nalgo policy to campaign for the assimilation of Manor House Hospital into the state service; is surprised that Mrs. Glenys Kinnock has supported a fund raising event at the hospital; and condemns the double standards which enable Labour supporters to praise Manor House Hospital whilst condemning the use of private health care by others.]
Is he aware that one of those who helped in fund-raising activities at that independent hospital is none other than the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? Is it not hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to object to private health care and then encourage fund-raising activities by an independent hospital?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is typical of the double standards adopted by the Labour party towards private health, which adds to the total income available to health services in this country. The Labour party should come clean on the matter and say whether it supports private health care, or whether it is only for certain trade union members. It should also say whether it would remove pay beds from the national health service. I noticed what the Leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago. The Labour party's policy would deprive the health service of £100 million in additional income. I notice that it has made no pledges to increase the overall funding of the health service.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House ensure that, if an announcement is to

be made in the middle of next week, the first day's debate on the Budget statement lasts until at least 10 o'clock on Tuesday so that I have a chance to ask the Chancellor whether he is aware of a chamber of commerce survey in Coventry some 15 months ago on the health of 150 local firms? When the chamber of commerce tried to repeat the survey a few weeks ago, it found that only 64 of those businesses were still in existence. With fewer than 300 vacancies in Coventry's job centre, and with 20,000 people chasing those vacancies, I would ask the Chancellor whether he still thinks that the misery of the people in Coventry is a price well worth paying.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend that the debate should run until 10 o'clock on Tuesday. Whether he will be called to speak, however, is not a matter for me. If he is, I hope that he will give the House his reflections on the Confederation of British Industry's report today, which, after a widespread trawl of its members, has concluded that any attempt to impose a statutory minimum wage would add at least 150,000 to the unemployment figure, and that, if existing differentials are maintained, the extra payroll costs could amount to £50 million. The hon. Gentleman will accept that that could have a devastating effect on jobs in Coventry and elsewhere.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Could we have a debate next week on parking and the use of roads so that I can raise the problems of my constituents, many of whom have great difficulty in Ealing, North, Northfields, Perivale, Hanwell and west Ealing, in parking their vehicles and making progress on the roads when going about their business? Something must be done about that urgent and important matter.

Mr. MacGregor: As ever, my hon. Friend is extremely assiduous in raising issues that affect his constituents. I am sure that he will pursue those matters locally and will find opportunities next week—other than in Government time, which he will recognise is fully taken up—to pursue them in the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: May I ask the Leader of the House about next week's business in the hope that, on Monday—given that the Budget will not have been presented by then—he will encourage as many hon. Members as possible, first, to see the exhibition on the new building in Westminster Hall, which you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to open last Monday; and, secondly, to try to participate in the debate on the new building? It is no good hon. Members talking about proposals for the new building after they have been accepted by the House unless they have participated in the debate on the new accommodation which Members will require in the future.
Next week there will be a draw for private Members' motions. Last week, I was fortunate enough to be second on the list for private Members' motions on Friday 13 March. It broke my belief in the superstition, because after seven years my name had come out of the ballot. I hope that the Leader of the House will guarantee that, after waiting seven years, on Friday 13 March the opportunity will still be afforded me to present an important proposal on unemployment, the underfunding of the training and enterprise councils, and the necessity for the Government to do something about training programmes.

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I agree, and I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works under his chairmanship, and to all that the hon. Gentleman has done. I echo his suggestion that as many hon. Members as possible should see the exhibition. There has always been great pressure to improve office accommodation, particularly that of secretaries, in the House, so the proposal is important. If we can manage to agree the matter next Monday, it will be possible to move faster on the building programme than if we cannot. Therefore, it will be important to have a debate next Monday, and I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said.
On the hon. Gentleman's second request I shall have to be less obliging. I notice that the debate that precedes his is on taxation and public expenditure. I have a suspicion that many of my hon. Friends and others will wish to participate in that debate and to draw attention to the huge gaps between Labour's spending commitments and its tax commitments. They will also want to draw attention to the substantial public expenditure programmes that the Government have carried through as a high priority, including those relating to training, which are two and a half times bigger in real terms that they were under the Labour Government.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, £96 million of public money provided by the Government for university tuition fees has not been passed on to universities by some local education authorities? Will he find time next week to discuss that scandal and try to find some way to achieve fairness for the universities and ensure that they receive the money that the Government intend them to have?

Mr. MacGregor: I take my hon. Friend's point. I shall act immediately and do what I am sure he has already done—draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House stop ducking the question that he has been asked three times and come clean about the length of the Budget debate? The Government have one of two options next week: to stick to the traditional Government economic policy, which is manifestly a disaster and which will lose them the election, or to change the policy radically by increasing public expenditure and giving people money in their hands in an attempt to cut and run. Given the need to debate the Budget properly, are we to have a Budget debate for four days, or are the Government to prevent us from having even that opportunity to test their policies—yes or no?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and hear my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. I have already stated the business for next week.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the admirable White Paper published by the Ministry of Defence today, "The Future of Britain's Reserve Forces", in which the Ministry of Defence draws on the lessons to be learned from the Gulf war and from the deliberations on the armed forces Bill about the call-out of reserves? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the

House tomorrow or on Monday to make a statement on that issue, as it shows that Her Majesty's Government have a commitment to effective reserve forces, as distinct from Labour party policies?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the merits of our policy, and the distinction between it and that of the Labour party. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the White Paper. As to whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence can make a statement on the Floor of the House, we have had a considerable number of statements and we have important business today. I felt that it was not possible to have another oral statement today, particularly as we are to have the estimates debate and an important debate on Northern Ireland. Therefore, I fear that I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend on that.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Opposition would welcome a debate next Friday on taxation and public expenditure, because we would welcome the chance to hear the Government's views on their bizarre philosophical twist to the economic programme of John Maynard Keynes—that taxation can be cut by increasing the public sector borrowing requirement to £31 billion. That will be a talking point in pubs and clubs up and down the country.
As some of us are superstitious about Friday the 13th, may I invite the Leader of the House, as a Cabinet Minister and a Privy Councillor, to give us a categorical assurance that we will be debating those issues on that day?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a categorical assurance about any aspect of a business statement. I have made the position clear, and there will be plenty of opportunities next week to debate these matters.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that, if we had a public expenditure borrowing requirement of the levels that pertained under the last Labour Government, it would have averaged £40 billion and, at its peak under that Government, £55 billion. That is a measure of the irresponsibility from which the country suffered under the Labour Government.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: May we have a debate next week on advertising standards? An advertising campaign is running in my constituency under the slogan, "Made in Britain", but it has become clear that the perpetrator of that campaign, given the opportunity to buy a car, decided to buy Italian. It is a Labour party campaign, and we need another opportunity for the Labour party to tell us what it thinks. Has not the Labour party told the British people, "Don't do what we do, do as we say"?

Mr. MacGregor: I also recall a Labour party political broadcast recently which endeavoured to show falsely that most of the items in the broadcast were made abroad and were not available from manufacturing in this country. That was another attempt to undermine the great success of much of British manufacturing industry in the past few years. Typically, Labour did not comment on the fact that we have increased our share of world manufacturing trade in each of the past three years.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if a general election is announced


next week, it will be the first time since the war that the Budget debate has been curtailed and the first time ever that a Finance Bill has been guillotined from its start?

Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the business for next week.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend try to make time for a debate on the relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom following recent discourtesies to the British Army and Her Majesty the Queen? In passing, should not we send our congratulations to the English cricket team who, with the assistance of Guy the gorilla, thrashed the Aussies by eight wickets?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree, and I am sure that the whole House joins in my hon. Friend's congratulations.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 701 on the Warrington Czech book appeal?
[That this House congratulates the people of Warrington, Warrington Borough Council and all the companies who have assisted in any way in donating goods and money towards the collection of eight tons of books which will be transported to Czechoslovakia at midnight on Saturday 22nd February in transport loaned, fuelled and driven by Warrington people and the business community; and expresses the hope that the twinning arrangements between Warrington and the people of Nachod prosper and goes from strength to strength in the future.]
The motion congratulates the people of Warrington on donating eight tons of books to Czechoslovakia. It also points to the partnership between Warrington borough council and the private sector in transporting the books. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the business for next week, will the right hon. Gentleman, instead of waiting until then, congratulate the people of Warrington today?

Mr. MacGregor: For once, I can take up a request by the hon. Gentleman in a positive way. I should certainly like to add my congratulations and those of the Government to the people of Warrington on the appeal. As the House knows, this is a difficult time for the people of Czechoslovakia, as it is for all who have had to endure communism for so long. One of the worst things for a people as well educated and as cultured as the Czechs has been the absence of free access to books and information. I am happy to underline what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is offering the country an adventure. I wonder whether it would be possible next week to have a debate on political adventurism, then we can decide whether it would be more appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to have a starring role in "Boyo's Own", or, alternatively, to take the leading part in Peter Pan, with its inevitable destination of Never-Never Land.

Mr. MacGregor: I think that there will be plenty of opportunities in the period ahead to make some of the serious points underlying my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Has the Leader of the House seen the report in this morning's issue of The Guardian that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern

Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), is making an announcement about the sale of the four generating stations in Northern Ireland for £1 billion? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the people of Northern Ireland, through the Northern Ireland Exchequer, paid for the construction of those four generating stations, it appears from the press story that the funding will not be credited to the Northern Ireland Exchequer but will be transferred to the central Exchequer in London? Why are we not to have a statement in the House on this matter? As it increasingly looks as if the Government would be well advised to delay the election until June or July, would the Leader of the House consider initiating a debate on this matter during the next three weeks, because it appears that the Conservative Government are stealing £1 billion from the people of Ulster?

Mr. MacGregor: I have noted the request for a debate within the next three weeks, and I shall bear it in mind. It might be possible briefly to refer to that matter in the wide-ranging debate on Northern Ireland that will take place later today. I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the debate on the National Lottery Bill, at which time Britain shared with Albania the privilege of being the only country in Europe without a national lottery, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) has just returned from Albania to report that lottery tickets are on sale in the streets of Tirana? Therefore, is not the matter of considerable urgency, and will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a statement or commitment of some kind before the House rises would be extremely popular in the country?

Mr. MacGregor: The further work that was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on Friday 17 January is in hand, and I, hope that we can announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on the shameful lack of consultation by Bradford district health authority on the proposed closure of Westwood hospital, in my constituency? No doubt the Leader of the House has noted early-day motion 761.
[That this House is appalled by the privatisation proposals of Bradford Health Authority to be implemented through the closure of Westwood Hospital and the transfer of mentally handicapped patients to Takare plc, Care Solutions Ltd. and AHP Rehabilitation Ltd. in the profit-seeking private sector; notes that Care Solutions Ltd. is a recently formed company with a director resident in Lugano, Switzerland, who has not yet made any returns to Companies House, and that AHP Rehabilitation Ltd. has one hundred pound issued shares and that the company has given an unlimited guarantee on bank borrowings; regards the use of the mentally handicapped as profit sources as immoral and places their future in jeopardy should any of these companies fail; and calls on the Bradford District Health Authority to scrap these odious proposals and retain Westwood Hospital as demanded by those who put patients before profit.]
The district health authority proposes to transfer patients from the excellent site on which Westwood hospital stands and which gives peace and serenity to mentally handicapped people to a home which has yet to be built by a company which is so fresh that it has not even made any returns to the Registrar of Companies. How can proper consultation have been undertaken with relatives and people with an important involvement when they have not been told about proposals for alternative accommodation, and cannot be, given the nature of the matter? The matter is urgent. Relatives and parents are concerned, and I hope that the Minister for Health will make a statement to the House before the general election.

Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Bradford health authority has carefully developed plans for the patients of Westwood hospital. Those plans are in accordance with our widely accepted care in the community policy. I am told that the health authority is satisfied that all the companies mentioned meet the requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, no matter how short the Budget debate, there should be time to make it clear that, every year since 1986, the yield from income tax has risen despite cuts in the basic rate, and that makes absolute nonsense of the claptrap being peddled by the Opposition parties that there is a choice to be made between cutting income tax and the yield therefrom?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The yield from higher rates of tax has risen over the period during which we have cut the higher rates to internationally competitive levels and taken them away from the totally punitive levels of Labour when it was in power. That is the interesting result of the extra endeavour, enterprise and economic growth achieved by our tax policies.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Although the right hon. Gentleman will not much longer be responsible for these matters, will he set in train the process of a re-examination of the taking of points of order? Is he aware that, in the old days, when I came into the House, points of order were taken the moment they arose? Is he aware that the present practice of delaying points of order is yet another result of the deleterious effects of the introduction of television cameras into the House and is designed to prevent Members from raising points of order in prime television time?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Torbay hospital now approaches its 12th month of self-governing status within the national health service? Is he aware also that during that period 60 extra doctors and nurses have been employed, along with nine extra consultants and several other additional staff? Two new wards have been opened and the largest number of patients ever treated in the hospital have been looked after with marvellous care. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on such matters so that Torbay hospital and its achievements can be presented to the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I would very much like to do so. My hon. Friend underlines what is happening in so many trust hospitals. We are getting improved health care. The accusations made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have been proved in practice to be completely out of touch. It has been demonstrated that the Conservative party is increasing funds for the NHS and carrying through management reforms that enable the funds to be better spent at the front line on patient care.

Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people of Indian origin who have settled in the United Kingdom are extremely concerned at the consequences for them of an extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and India and of a bilateral agreement between this country and India on the confiscation of terrorists' funds? As there is insufficient time for a treaty and the Orders in Council for the agreement to be laid in compliance with the parliamentary rules and conventions on the time that such matters have to be laid before the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that neither the treaty nor the agreement will be laid before the House in the next few days so that these extremely important matters can be given fresh consideration by a new Labour Government with a new mandate?

Mr. MacGregor: There will not be a Labour Government with a new mandate, but I shall look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that there have been a number of debates about a minimum wage policy and that there have been comments about it on other occasions. Did he read in the Employment Gazette in April 1991 that the half minimum wage pledge made by the Labour party would cost employers £3·80 an hour, not £3·40, and therefore by extension today's half minimum wage would cost employers more than £4 an hour? Bearing in mind these statistics, I wonder whether we should discuss the matter more fully to give the Opposition a chance to withdraw their foolish pledge.

Mr. MacGregor: Yes. I would couple with that the results of the authoritative survey which was carried out by the CBI, which were made available today. We are all awaiting the comments of Opposition Members on the survey. It is the sort of issue that my hon. Friend might be able to raise in next week's debates.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that, before the election breaks upon us, there will be time for a debate on the tragic increase in crime throughout the United Kingdom and the reductions in detection rates in so many places? Is he aware that in Leicestershire crime increased again and again last year and that detection rates fell by more than 6 per cent.? The chief constable has warned that policing will be further hit by cuts of more than £1 million in the coming year's force budget, and has complained about them. With crime rates soaring under the Government, it is surely unacceptable that police forces should be forced by Government cuts to reduce their expenditure on protecting our constituents.

Mr. MacGregor: The substantial increase in real terms on spending on the police under this Government cannot


be described as a cut. High priority has been given to increasing police numbers and improving police pay so that we are not faced with the recruitment and retention problems that had to be tackled when we came to power. We have sought generally to assist the police with modern technology, for example. We have given high priority to supporting the police and to dealing with the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate on car ownership, so that we can discuss the welcome news that British companies such as Rover are now producing cars of the highest quality and competitiveness, which are being exported with increasing success? Is it not a shame that, rather than backing the boys at Longbridge and Dagenham, the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to aspire to middle-class values and buy his daughter a car has chosen to stick two fingers up at the British car worker and back the boys in Turin by buying an Italian Fiat?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the improvements in the quality—and every other aspect—of British cars, and I certainly support all that he has said about the improvements in Rover cars.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not the kind of question that should be asked in business questions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall endeavour to call the hon. Members who are now rising, but I ask them to confine their questions to the business of the House, rather than making what are basically straight electioneering points—and not very good ones at that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Every hon. Member knows that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) is riddled with malice. It is very tragic.
May we have a debate about company contributions to political parties? Is there not a strong moral case for the Conservative party to return the £440,000 that it received from Mr. Asil Nadir? Should not that money be given to the receiver today? Is it not his property? What will the Government—and, indeed, the Conservative party—do about that?

Mr. MacGregor: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that those donations were received by the party entirely legally and in good faith. As for the general question of funding, as far as I can establish, business contributions are much smaller as a proportion of funds raised by the Conservative party than are union contributions as a proportion of funds raised by Labour. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already pointed out, research shows that, in the last election year, the political spending of a single union on the Labour party exceeded all company donations for all political activities.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: During the Budget debate, may we discuss the position of pensioners, particularly Mirror Group pensioners? As my right hon. Friend knows, they have lost a great deal of money which was given by Mr. Maxwell to the Labour party; perhaps we could discuss the question whether Labour will give that money back.

Mr. MacGregor: I have every sympathy for pensioners who find themselves innocent victims of the gross misuse of pension funds.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of what the Leader of the House said to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), will he arrange time for a debate on my Bill which would ensure that all political parties represented in the House of Commons published detailed reports of their finances, and that any moneys—whatever their source—whose donor had no authority to provide them would be returned? The Tory party should certainly return the money in question.
In such a debate, we could discuss placing a limit on the amount that political parties can spend during a general election campaign. If the amount that can be spent on our behalf in our constituencies is to be restricted—and I agree that that is right—why should political parties nationally spend as much as they like? In the last general election year, the Tory party spent between £15 million and £20 million on its campaign.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already pointed out that, in the last election year, a single union contributed more to Labour than companies contributed in political donations. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, I must tell him that I see no opportunity for his Bill to be discussed in Government time next week.

Mr. Bob Dunn:: I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the request for an urgent debate next week on car ownership and "Made in Britain" campaigns. After all, what message is being given to workers at Dagenham and in the west midlands by the prospect of the leader of the Labour party buying an Italian car for his daughter, and the leader of London café society driving round in a French car—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the whole House that I hope we can leave our families out of our political arguments. It is quite unnecessary to bring them into the party political arena.

Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is reprehensible for us to be addressed in that way when the Labour party always attacks the family, manipulates the sick, and, in 1978, would not even allow the dead to be buried.

Mr. Speaker: I say again to the whole House that I hope that we can leave our families out of electioneering. There are plenty of other issues.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point of order. The Opposition have sat through a number of entirely untrue comments and allegations made by Conservative Members. One such statement was that pension fund money belonging to Mirror Group pensioners had gone to the Labour party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us ask questions about policy.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: And business.

Mr. Speaker: Yes—and business.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make a statement next week about


the £440,000 received from Asil Nadir by the Tory party? That money was given illegally, and, bearing in mind what the Leader of the House has said, I ask why the Tory party does not publish its accounts. The Labour party does. Why does big business give money when the Labour party gets money from the trade unions only after a ballot? If students and people who get money from the social fund have to give their loans back, why cannot the Tory party give the money back to the people? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Maxwell?"] I hear the word "Maxwell". I moved a resolution, which was successful, at the Labour party national executive committee a few weeks ago which means that if the £43,000 that came to the Labour party was connected with the Mirror Group pension fund that money will go back. That is what the Labour party is doing. Now will the Tory party do the same?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made the point that the donations were received entirely legally by the Conservative party. I have also noted that there have often been considerable delays in the publication of some union accounts. Furthermore, as I have already said, the Labour party receives a much larger proportion of its total income from the trade unions than the Conservative party receives from companies. Trade unions have considerable influence on and power over the election of the leader of the Labour party, and also made a very significant contribution to its funding. There is no such situation with the Conservative party.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Was it not clear from the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time today that my right hon. Friend would be doing a favour to the nation if he arranged for a further debate on the national health service before the House was dissolved so that many of us could make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that, when his party was last in government, our constituents—often people dying of cancer—were being turned away from hospitals by porters and other ancillary workers, who fund the Labour party and who have no interest in patients whatsoever?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that it would be highly desirable to have another debate on the health service. What my hon. Friend has said is only one of the many points that could be made. Another would be, that, in order to meet the demands of health service unions, there would be a reduction in the amount of funding for patient care. As the Labour party does not propose any overall increase, that would mean a total reduction. The kind of comments and accusations that we are hearing from some Labour Members are totally off the mark—my hon. Friend is right.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is there any likelihood of time being found for the Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill? The Leader of the House will know that it passed its Report stage in another place on Monday. We co-operated actively with the Government to ensure its swift passage. What is to happen to it? Many of our constituents—fine, decent and honourable men—lost their jobs because they had the courage to speak out on safety matters on offshore

installations. Lord Cullen said that there was a need to protect those men, but what will happen to them? Is the Bill to be jettisoned?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the Bill and have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Government support its objectives. I shall have to look into the exact position.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the light of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider initiating a debate early next week on early-day motion 402?
[That this House notes that the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record have over the years played a vitally important campaigning and news role as the only left of centre daily newspapers in the United Kingdom; further notes the need in a free society .for balance in the news media; expresses its solidarity with the journalists, editorial and production staff; and also pledges full support for their current attempt to secure the paper's future by means of a management buyout.]
There is an amendment to that motion which stands in my name and which calls on the Labour party not only to reveal for the first time the amount of cash with which Maxwell supplied it over the years but to disclose details of that which was received in kind. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been reports in quality newspapers of equipment being provided by Maxwell to the Labour party, of jobs being provided for the Leader of the Opposition's children, and of a cut-price Jaguar being supplied? If the information mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolsover is to come out, we need to know about those things. Pension funds have been pillaged by that man—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ask a question; do not begin a debate.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend raises an important point in relation to the early-day motion. Any proposed transfer of the group will be inspected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If questions put to the House are found by you to be out of order—[Interruption.] Clearly the previous one was because you rose to stop the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who persisted despite your previous cautions, but you allowed the Leader of the House to answer it.

Mr. Speaker: I said that the hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not begin a debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Before the general election is announced—whenever that might be—should not the electoral registration figures for England and Wales be published for the benefit of hon. Members? Such figures are available for Northern Ireland, constituency by constituency. Provisional figures are available for Scotland, and the number of overseas voters has now been published for England and Wales, constituency by constituency. Why cannot we know the


number of voters on each register in each constituency so that we know the general pattern before the election is announced?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is extremely fearful of the general election because he asks that question week after week. He is clearly highly nervous about the forthcoming election. I shall give him the same answer that I gave him before. Electoral figures for as many parliamentary constituencies as are available will be published immediately before the general election, whenever that may be.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I repeat the earlier request for a debate next week on education, so that we can make three points? First, good education is underpinned by competition and by variety and choice for parents. Secondly, it would be a disaster if grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and especially grammar schools were abolished. Thirdly, it is gross hypocrisy for people who had the opportunity to have a grammar school education—such as 14 members of the shadow Cabinet—now to try to deny the same opportunity to thousands of children.

Mr. MacGregor: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is 100 per cent. right on all three points, and I hope that he will have many more opportunities to make them.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the conclusion of this Parliament, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a special debate on the situation facing old-age pensioners? A statement should enable the state old-age pension to be raised by £17 on 1 April so that it is at least calculated on the same basis as it was in 1980. That would be a start on returning the billions of pounds that have been stolen from old-age pensioners over the past 13 years so that they can at least live in some dignity in retirement instead of having to face the enormous cut in the state pension during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. MacGregor: I would be happy to have a debate on the position in relation to pensioners, but we cannot have one next week unless hon. Members can raise the issue in our debate on the Budget statement. I would be happy to have such a debate because that would enable us to point out yet again that the average income of pensioners—

Mr. Corbyn: Income, not pension.

Mr. MacGregor: I will come to that. The average income of pensioners has risen by more than one third in real terms during our period in office. It has risen faster than for the general population, and it has risen a good deal faster than ever before. Part of the reason for that is the Conservative philosophy and concentration on encouraging pensioners to have a wide spread of occupational pensions, personal pensions, and other savings and not on clobbering them with tax like the Labour party.
We have fully observed our commitment on the state pension. Well above that, we have concentrated substantial sums of extra public expenditure on those who rely on the state pension, and who are therefore less well off, through increases in disability benefit, housing benefit, income support benefit and community charge benefit.

Mr. John Browne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 585?
[That this House is increasingly aware of how it was misled, and indeed used, as part of a finely calculated and deliberate injustice perpetrated for party political reasons against the honourable Member for Winchester and his constituents on 7th March 1990, by senior Government Ministers and the abuse of the whipping system on that day to influence the vote of the House whilst sitting in judgment over one of its honourable Members; notes that of the Government Ministers directly involved, namely the Right honourable Members for Surrey East, Mole Valley and Mid Sussex, one was a Queen's Counsel and a past Foreign Secretary in charge of MI6 and another, as Home Secretary, is now in charge of MI5; is deeply concerned that if such Ministers, deemed fit to control the secret services of the Crown, can take such blatantly discriminatory and unjust action against a loyal colleague, then no citizen of the land is safe under the law; believes that continued delay by Her Majesty's Government in the face of this obvious case will be seen by the general public either as a cover up or as condoning the gross misconduct of the senior Ministers involved; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act swiftly, before the election, either to bring this matter urgently before the Committee of Privileges or to allow the honourable Member fin. Winchester to present his case before Parliament in Government time before further injustice is clone in this or any future case.]
As none of the key issues were even known about when the House debated the matter on 7 March 1990, will my right hon. Friend please publicly correct his reply during business questions on 30 January 1992, as reported in Hansard at column 1083, when he said that all those matters had been "fully debated"?

Mr. MacGregor: During business questions, one can give only a short reply. My hon. Friend had a debate on that matter last Friday when he took up a great deal of the time of the House and he was therefore able to make his case fully. I gave a fuller reply to him then which covered the issues.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the heart-rending delays suffered in the Scottish courts by those who have asbestosis or mesothelioma, what is the Government's reaction to the report of the Scottish Law Commission published today on the effect of death on damages? I have given notice of that question. Is there any hope of quick action? I have also given notice of my next question. With regard to Libya, do the Government understand—and they should have been told by the security services—that one of the so-called Libyans has far more to do with Beirut and terrorist gangs in Lebanon than he has with Tripoli? If there is not to be a statement on Libya next week, may we have an assurance that there will be no military action or sanctions?

Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I do not know whether there will be a statement on Libya next week. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would raise his first point. As he knows, the report was laid yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is being considered.

Mr. William O'Brien: May I remind the Leader of the House that local authorities arc now presenting their budgets to their poll tax payers? Last


year's fiasco, caused by the delay in sending out poll tax demands, created many problems for local authorities in collecting the poll tax. The only reason why poll tax bills are being sent out this year is that Tory Members demanded it.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week confirming that there will be no delay in the issue of poll tax demands and that they will be allowed to be sent out before 1 April, the beginning of the financial year for local authorities? May we be assured that the Government will not play canny and delay poll tax bills being sent out throughout the country just because an election is pending?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there is any need for a statement, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities made the position very clear in the past 24 hours in response to certain wild allegations.

Mr. Tony Banks: As this is probably the right hon. Gentleman's last appearance at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the House, may I thank him for his courteous treatment of my questions in the past? Will he look at early-day motion 796 about the proposed Canadian seal cull?
[That this House expresses concern at the news that the Canadian Government is contemplating an expansion of harp seal culling; believes there is insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate a claim that seals have significantly contributed to a fall in East Coast cod stocks; notes that Canada still has the largest annual seal hunt in the world with a current quota of 186,000 per year with over 50,000 seals killed last year; calls upon the Canadian Government to put in place improved fishing management schemes in conjunction with member states of the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation including the European Community; and warns the Canadian Government that any expansion of seal slaughter will undoubtedly result in a campaign to boycott Canadian fish stocks.]
May we have a chance in the last few days of this Parliament to discuss the matter? If the Leader of the

House will not allow that, will he, in the few days left to him, make representations to the Canadian Government about the proposed cull, say how much opposition to it there is in this country, and warn them of the effect that there will be in this country if the cull proceeds?

Mr. MacGregor: I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in relation to his opening comment, which I think he will find will not be correct. [Interruption.] I can assure him that it will not be correct. I shall draw his question of substance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but the Canadian Government are well aware of the long-standing public concern in this country and in other countries about seal culling.

BILLS PRESENTED

EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION)

Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Austin Mitchell and Mr. Richard Shepherd, presented a Bill to require the preparation and distribution of a statement summarising the provisions and implications of the draft Treaty on European Union and its principal associated Treaties, and the consequent changes in the rights and powers of the citizens and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

POLITICAL PARTY FINANCING

Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to require political parties represented in the House of Commons to publish detailed annual reports and accounts and to specify information to be contained therein; to provide that, where a donor makes to a political party a donation to which he has no title, the donation may not be retained by the party but shall be paid to such person as a court may direct; to impose a limit on expenditure by a political party during a general election; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1991–92

CLASS II, VOTE 2

Yugoslavia

[Relevant document: First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1991–92 on Central and Eastern Europe: Problems of the Post-Communist Era (House of Commons Paper No. 21).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £27,939,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the class II, vote 2 estimates, and I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the subject for today's debate is Yugoslavia and not the whole of the Select Committee report.

Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be grateful for this opportunity for a brief debate on Yugoslavia related to the vote on the Order Paper and also to that part of the recent report from the Select Committee which covered central Europe as a whole, but which also related to Yugoslavia and the crisis and the killing going on there. This could hardly be a better time for the House to consider developments in Yugoslavia, because, while we are debating this matter, a major United Nations force is beginning to be put together to move into the former Yugoslavia.
It is the first United Nations force in history to be assembled on the European mainland. So far, 22 nations have said that they will take part. It will cost an estimated $633 million for the first year, although my own view is that that will only be the beginning and that it is likely to stay there for much longer than that. As I understand it—no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will clarify the matter—Britain has offered to participate through a 1,000-strong logistical battalion. This is the beginning of a mighty operation. It is not the biggest United Nations operation since the war, but it is the first ever on the European mainland, and it is very sobering that it should be so.
The situation in Balkans is an extreme example of the splintering, fragmentation and self-determination run riot that has followed the retreat of the communist ice age and the withdrawal of the Communist party tyrannies all over eastern and central Europe, leaving behind many disputes, bitternesses and hatreds which many people mistakenly thought had been buried in history, but which turned out to have been living all the time in the mud, strife and debris under the communist tyranny veneer.
The Select Committee, whose members visited parts of the former Yugoslavia, found again and again witnesses saying that what had been going on in Croatia—the conflict between the Serbians and the federal forces and

between the Serbian enclaves in Croatia and Krajina and the Croatian forces—was merely the prelude to further conflicts. All the people we saw were convinced that there was more terror and bloodshed and more horror to come. That was a grim prospect.
Again, even as we debate the issue, the neighbouring state or province—it is not yet fully recognised as a state—of Bosnia-Herzegovina is in great danger. The tensions there are rising by the hour. They appear to have been triggered partly by the recognition of Croatian independence by the European Community in a rather rushed way. The United States and United Nations still hold back from that recognition. The tensions were also triggered, of course, by the referendum. It was recommended to the Bosnians by the European Community, but it has created incredible tension.
We hear reports that Sarajevo is like a tinder box, that peace is on a knife edge and that the prospect could be about to open up of Croatians, Serbians and Muslims fighting each other again. Indeed, some have already died in the past few days. Just as it is a "first" that the United Nations is mounting a vast operation on European mainland soil, so it is a first in recent times, although certainly not in history, that Muslims could be fighting Christians. Of course, Christians of one denomination are also fighting Christians of another denomination in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
It is also a sign of a remarkable reinvolvement of that problematical country and nation, Turkey, in areas from which it was driven many decades ago. Indeed, the issues of Turkish domination in those parts were hotly debated in the House 100 years ago and more.
So that is the ugly and miserable scene. Many thousands of people have already died and United Nations troops are now being asked to go into this precarious situation. Several international organisations have already been involved and the Select Committee's report examined the position of all of them.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe tried without much effect to calm down the processes of the independence of Slovenia and the move towards independence by Croatia. The invasion of the federal Serbian-backed forces led to the killing in recent months.
Then the European Community sought to establish a peace process and put monitors into the area. It eventually put pressure on the Serbians in particular, but Yugoslavia in general, by introducing economic sanctions. Then came the recognition that none of that was having much effect and that the time had come for a higher level of intervention by the United Nations. That is what we are seeing unfold. Meanwhile, the EC peace efforts continue.
If I may offer my own view, no praise is too high for the role being played by Lord Carrington, who has had the unenviable task of heading the Hague peace conference under the aegis of the EC in an attempt to bring these warring people to the peace table. So far, the conference has had some success. Indeed, with the prospect of the United Nations forces coming in, it has succeeded to the point of achieving a ceasefire, but at any moment things could go badly into reverse.
It is an ugly and dangerous situation. No one can say with confidence that the blooddshed is over or even that an end is in sight. One has to ask, and the report of the Select Committee asked, what lessons can be learned from the events in Yugoslavia. For instance, did the interventions of


the European Community help or hinder the process? One must say that the EC monitors were brave. It was a tragedy that some of them were killed. They appeared to do a good job. The EC trade sanctions may also have brought it home to the Serbians and Mr. Milosevic that the outside world would not put up for ever with the uncontrolled assaults of the federal army and the ridiculous exercises in which the federal troops indulged in trying to destroy the pearl of the Adriatic, Dubrovnic, and in other atrocities.
However, at the same time, it must be accepted that the EC's recognition of Croatia went against the recommendations of its own arbitration commission under Mr. Badinter. The Select Committee had the opportunity to meet the arbitration committee. We met Mr. Badinter.
There was no doubt, once it had been established that the EC was going to recognise Croatia and did so, that it added new fears to the minds of the Serbian minority in Croatia and in Bosnia, where there has been a referendum in which the Serbians refused to take part. That, added to other tensions and worries—blame can be fairly laid on all sides and no one side can be accused of being all guilty—has brought the pattern of conflict to an extremely dangerous point.
On 11 November last year, some members of the Select Committee met Mr. Slobodan Milosevic in his baroque palace in Belgrade. He told the Committee a number of things. He gave some absurd and transparent excuses, which did not impress us at all, for the behaviour of the federal army, which was rampaging round Dubrovnik at the time.
However we caught hold of one of his remarks. For the first time he was prepared to consider the admission of the United Nations to the scene. His views were clear about the terms on which he wanted that to happen—the United Nations forces should come into the Serbian enclave areas of Bosnia, Krajina and other parts of the former frontier province areas between Bosnia and Croatia and they should stay there for many years. He wanted them to stay there as long as was required for tempers and memories to cool, if that were possible. Heaven knows, memories are monstrously long down there—there are plenty of monstrous things to remember—and they seem to go on for ever. He thought that if the United Nations troops stayed long enough it would be possible to freeze the political status of those enclaves, so that the unending dispute about whether they were Serbian or part of Croatia, and whether they should have autonomy, and of what kind, could at last be settled in a peaceful atmosphere.
The view which has come out of Zagreb and from the Croatians has always been totally different. They have said that they will let the United Nations in—there was common ground there—but only for a few months while things are settled and before the lands revert to the new, independent Croatia, which is a totally different concept.

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend has given us the views of others, but he is reporting to the House the conclusions of a Select Committee. I hope that he will give us his unbiased view of the premature recognition by the European Community of Croatia, bearing in mind the fact that the boundaries of the various Yugoslav republics were determined by the arbitrary decision of the communist Tito. Croatia includes within its

boundaries a large Serbian minority, who have every reason to remember brutality and cruelty—which can only be compared with the worst excesses of the Nazis—committed against them in their country. Surely there can be no future in the present rulings unless the United Nations remains there permanently.

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend is right. That is on page 2 of my brief remarks, which I am coming to.
I want to offer some views, but in this situation views are easy. It is solutions to the contrary and the deeply held views of the parties involved which are the difficult part. My right hon. Friend is right; those people hold violently different views on the validity of internal borders. Those difficulties will continue, even though the United Nations troops are there, which leads the Committee to the view that
it is likely that UN troops will find it extremely hard to withdraw for many years hence
although the present commitment is to stay for one year. Urged on by my right hon. Friend, I stress that it is important to consider what can be done by those outside—the international order and the United Nations. What lessons can be drawn so that a better life and higher justice will prevail over the justice of the bullet and the slaughter that have prevailed in recent months?
As the Select Committee pointed out, the United Nations intervention raises new issues. It takes the United Nations beyond its reluctance to intervene in domestic affairs. Yugoslavia remains an international personality to this day. In theory, the United Nations is interfering in a nation state. Even if one accepts that Yugoslavia is finished—in practice it is, more or less—the United Nations is intervening in an area where there are disputes about whether it is on Croatian soil, as President Tudjman insists it is, or is in a Serbian enclave, as Mr. Babic and others claim. Alternatively, will the United Nations remain in a no man's land until somebody decides whose rules prevails and what the law should be?
The Committee's second question was whether the European Community had succeeded in "managing" the Balkan turmoil or it was a hopeless task? I and some of the members of the Committee were uneasy when we sensed that the European Community was seen to be intervening, not necessarily in line with a particular strategy, because it felt that it had to do something. It felt that its foreign policy had to be gathered together and something should be done; the result was EC intervention.
One could argue, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has argued with characteristic forcefulness, that that led to extraordinary action whereby the European Community did not recognise Croatia in the summer, when that might have achieved some good, but rushed to do so in January, when it was driven on by German insistence. That happened in a way that was bound to harden attitudes all round, increase tensions and raise the temperatures in Bosnia and Sarajevo. That might lead to yet more killing. That is a real danger, which was foreseen by some, but not other policy makers in central Europe, and it has led to a worsening of the crisis.
The Select Committee took the view that our hopes must rest on the United Nations as an effective force. It may have to remain in Yugoslavia for some time. Its forces should go to Sarajevo, where the headquarters of one of its administrative offices has already been set up. It must


demonstrate forcefully to all the parties concerned that they have nothing to gain from more fighting or killing. That is true for Mr. Milosevic and his encouragement of the remaining federal army forces in Bosnia, for the Croats who wish to bring the Croats of Bosnia into a greater Croatia and the Muslims, who, it is reported, are arming themselves and seeking help from fellow Muslims outside the Balkans and Europe. None of them will gain and that should be demonstrated. Hitherto, that has been a sad and weak demonstration. Now it must be strong.
The longer-term task must be to decide how such little nations can settle down with their own independence or how they can work together. If four or five of them want to create a new form of Yugoslavia, they should be allowed to do so. I hope that the Committee made it clear that the fullest possible support should be given to the large UN forces to be deployed. It will be made up of 13,240 military personnel in a total contingent of 14,287. It represents the third largest UN commitment since 1945. Support for that body is our immediate task.
In the longer term, we must find a new role for and the principles upon which the United Nations can act and define the security context of the new mini-nations. Will they be embraced by NATO or the new North Atlantic Co-operation Council? On trade and economics, Slovenia and Croatia are considering applying to join the European Community. Will we welcome that? If not, what economic relationship will they have with us?
A lasting peace and democracy cannot be imposed or ordered from above or from outside. However much we try, that will come from the readiness of the people to elect leaders they trust, to have sound finance, good trade and democratic practices. They must realise that fighting will not pay and will only lead to more death and no gain to anyone. That is the Committee's objective view.
Meanwhile, I pray that this is not the beginning of another bloody chapter in Europe's history.

Mr. Donald Anderson: History is not dead: it is alive and unwell in Yugoslavia. Those who wish to find heroes or villains in that tangled conflict or to discover the aggressors or apportion blame will start their clocks at different times. Some will go back to the second world war, some will go back to the first world war and some will reach back even further into history to the great fault line between the Ottoman empire and Christendom.
The immediate background to tragedy is the collapse of communism and the death of the charismatic Tito, which removed the evil and superficial overlay to reveal old national realities. Now that that overlay has been removed in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, there is a real danger that it will be replaced by authoritarian leaders or the military.
The speed of the dissolution—the implosion—of Yugoslavia and the depth of the anger between the different nationalities that it has revealed has surprised some. However, with the benefit of hindsight, that dissolution seemed almost inevitable given that so few unifying factors remain in what was once Yugoslavia.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his Select Committee on producing, yet again, a first-rate report, which is, of course, a valedictory dispatch. That Committee has been most fortunate because, for the past five years, it has observed one of the

most fascinating periods of history. During that time, the Committee has distinguished itself, as it has with this report, by bringing its wisdom to the House.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this particular Select Committee report appears as a timely background to the debate. It has helped us to reflect on the lessons and perhaps it will enable us to avoid some of the looming tragedies that could occur in the remaining parts of what was once Yugoslavia. We may, of course, face similar challenges in various crises with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Even in Yugoslavia, as the right hon. Gentleman underlined, the tragedy may yet be played out because there is a precarious peace in Bosnia, and Macedonia offers its own special complexities.
The questions for us to analyse include what lessons we can learn from the drift to war since the summer of 1991. When could intervention by the international community have been justified and productive? For example, an arms ban could have amounted to intervention on behalf of one of the combatants, given the way in which arms were distributed between the various parties to the conflict. In the summer there were no simple, agreed frontiers and there were many pockets of fighting, which certainly would have endangered any peace-making forces that sought to intervene.
Was it too brutish for the international community to allow the combatants, in effect, to exhaust themselves? Perhaps we are faced with a similar problem in Nagorany Karabakh, after the failure of the peace-making efforts by Iranians and Turks, at a time when the CIS—the Commonwealth of Independent States—forces are withdrawing and when there seems to be no international body with the will and resources to intervene in that sad part of the world.
Was it right to try to keep the federal structures intact? Our presumption was that it was right to do so, certainly as a transitional mechanism, while a longer-term solution might be sought. We in the United Kingdom viewed some of the pressure that came from at least one of our EC partners with a certain wariness, because of our experience in Northern Ireland and in Cyprus. Precipitate intervention, in our view—knowing the difficulties of extricating oneself—would have considerable and long-term resource implications.
Key questions included the definition of national sovereignty. At what point could the international community intervene in a recognised country at a time of civil war? Similarly, a key quesiton was the point at which the component parts of a state could legitimately demand self-determination for themselves. Where were the limits? Was it a question of size? Where could one stop? There was also the question, as the Select Committee pointed out pertinently, of the recognition criteria—the fact that the Badinter criteria were overlooked or ignored by the Community, which accepted the fait accompli of its own recognition.
The Yugoslav crisis has revealed that the United Kingdom is not relevant on its own but only as part of its alliances. It has revealed that the European Community, after its dismal showing in the Gulf crisis, has played a key and largely positive role. But the problems of a common foreign and security policy, to come into effect formally post-Maastricht on 1 July of next year, are clearly revealed by an examination of the EC response to the crisis. The problems of Macedonia remain and may lead to a Greek opt-out of any EC decision.

Sir Russell Johnston: Regarding Macedonia, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is nonsense for the Greeks to make so much fuss about a name when the people of Macedonia are Bulgar in origin and have no claims on any part of Greece?

Mr. Anderson: It is more than a name. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) pointed out, names and symbols have a particular relevance in that part of the world.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is making such an excellent speech that there was no need for that type of intervention from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), bearing in mind the fact that Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great were not Bulgarians. Indeed, there is great danger of a collision coming as a result of the ill-treatment of the people of ethnic Greek origin in Macedonia, unless the matter is brought under proper control.

Mr. Anderson: I accept the complexities of the matter, so perhaps it would be imprudent of me to go further down that road just now.
A key card that was not played, at least not openly, was the fact that all the combatant republics in Yugoslavia would eventually, at the end of the fighting and when the dust had settled, be looking to the EC for financial assistance. That key leverage aspect was available to the Community, and had the EC, possibly earlier in the conflict, said in terms that any financial assistance would come only when the status quo ante in terms of frontiers had been established, that would have given a clear signal to the combatants and forced them to ask whether their fighting was worth while. That point may have been made forcefully in the corridors. It was not made openly.
Whatever criticism one may make of the EC monitors, it is clear that they were necessary at the time. They were the only show in town and nobody else was available. Presumably they will now fade away and be replaced by the United Nations. Indeed, there has been a curious parallelism between the EC and the UN—an overlap between their two roles. I fully join the right hon. Member for Guildford in congratulating Lord Carrington who, true to his reputation as a conciliator and mediator-inchief, has done a remarkable job in that area.
At times, the torch was passed to Cyrus Vance, with his own power base and legitimacy at the UN, and it was predicted that the EC would recognise the two republics, that that would provoke more bloodshed and that it could be argued that that would be an obstacle to a comprehensive peace. Happily, so far the dire predictions of that possibly precipitate recognition have not been borne out. The United States has not yet followed the EC line, but it now appears that Bosnia, after the referendum, probably satisfies the Badinter criteria. I agree with the right hon. Member for Guildford about the importance of the EC forces going in speedily to try to maintain the existing frontiers within Bosnia. That may be their key role.
The problem of what is the appropriate institution was addressed by Edward Mortimer in The Financial Times yesterday. He quoted from the NATO Rome summit of last November and wrote of the need
for a framework of interlocking institutions"—
or, as he preferred to put it, a certain "institutional overcrowding." As we look around the landscape of

Europe, we see a vast variety of institutions which came into being at certain times for specific purposes and are still there, desperately looking for a role and seeking to expand their competences into spheres that were not envisaged when they were established. One understands that to be the professional deformation of people involved in organisations, be they the Council of Europe, Western European Union or NATO.
In June 1991, the CSCE—the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—established what was described as "an emergency mechanism", but it is untried and the organisation is hamstrung by its consensus principle, the problems of resources, and, of course, the issue of legitimacy. It is suggested that the lack of a power base militarily on the part of the CSCE might be met by an expanded role for NATO in the form of a North Atlantic co-operation council.
The Select Committee veered towards favouring an expanded role for NATO in this and other conflicts. That conclusion is probably, at the least, premature—the bewildering overlap of functions might have to continue for some time—and we should be wary of the search for tidiness or the creation of new institutions to manage change and conflict.
Our aim must be to build and maintain a more stable Europe. The tragedy of Yugoslavia has provided a laboratory experiment which, unhappily, is not yet finished. There remain the problems of Krajina, Kosovo and Bosnia. We understand that Lord Carrington has given himself about six months to establish a peace settlement. Ultimately, the United Nations will play the key role, but it may, in this regional conflict as in others, choose to sub-contract the effective work to tried organisations that can be more effective on the spot. In Europe, for example, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there is a possibility of many similar challenges.
All that we can do now is set out the broad principles on which the international community should meet the problems within Yugoslavia, which may be replicated elsewhere in what is now called the "wild east of Europe". Those principles include, first, the principle that frontiers—even those said to be artificial—should be changed only with consent and not as a result of military conflict; and, secondly, the establishment and guarantee of ethnic minority rights. If Serbia concerns itself with the fortunes of the Serbian minorities in Croatia and comes with clean hands in respect of its position in Kosovo, its case will be mightily strengthened.

Mr. Steve Norris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Kosovo, because I am mindful of the fact that 90 per cent. of those who live there are ethnic Albanians. Incidentally, they also form a substantial minority in Macedonia and they cannot be overlooked.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the saddest reflections of the present conflict in Yugoslavia is that only when fighting has broken out have perfectly legitimate claims to the concept of nationhod been taken seriously? Croatia and Slovenia have now disappeared from the headlines to be replaced by Bosnia because of the actuality of the conflict there. Does he agree that it would be a tragedy if any solution were to overlook the wholly legitimate claims of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo who, so far, have resisted violence but who are being offered, in practice, no other option?

Mr. Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that Kosovo should not be independent but that the human rights of those who live there must be guaranteed? If that is his view, I share it.

Mr. Norris: I do not wish to make a speech now in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I would not take a view on the independence of Kosovo, but the recognition of human rights there would be a welcome first step.

Mr. Anderson: Lessons to be learned by the international community are, first, to try to anticipate such problems and anticipate realities and, secondly, to base policy wholly on guaranteeing human rights, even if those are behind artificial frontiers.
However it is defined, there is a Europe out there which is unstable, needs to be made more stable and which will impact on us, for good or ill. The dangers of instability in our common European home are clear—refugees, the nuclear question and poverty. The main leverage for us in Europe and the European Community will be economic but the questions, the crises and the tragedies such as Yugoslavia demand a creative and generous response, which is in our long-term interest.
The future of Yugoslavia and further east is our future. As the old Europe—the Europe of Versailles and Yalta—unravels, we must painstakingly mould institutions in the light of experience to promote long-term stability. In that context, Yugoslavia is a test case, and we must not fail.

Mr. Julian Amery: The admirable speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was interrupted by questions about the ethnic composition of Macedonia and whether it is Bulgarian, Greek or Albanian. We should always bear in mind the words of Saint Paul, who said in one of his epistles:
Come over into Macedonia and help us; for the brethren are sore oppressed.
They are still oppressed.
In March 1950, 42 years ago, I ventured to make my maiden speech in the House in a debate on foreign affairs largely angled on eastern Europe and Yugoslavia. It was the most painful ordeal that I have ever been through, and 1 had been through some in the war. Mr. Ernest Bevin opened the debate and Anthony Eden replied. There was a full House, not because hon. Members wanted to hear my speech, but because, in those days when Members did not have a room, there was nowhere else to sit. It was an alarming experience. I was told that I must not speak for more than 20 minutes in a maiden speech and I wonder what you, Mr. Speaker, would feel about that nowadays.
Yugoslavia was one of the countries that became involved in the spread of the Soviet empire. I thank God that I have lived long enough to see that nightmare removed. Naturally, there are painful consequences now that daylight has returned to eastern Europe. But it is a rebirth; and birth, like death, is a gory business. We must not let our anxiety and horror at some contemporary events obscure our understanding of the fact that what is going on is better than what was happening before.
The Yugoslavs did not have the worst of it. By playing east against west, they managed to maintain some national independence and, although they had an appalling economic socialist regime, they managed, through tourism and exporting labour, to let some air into their lungs.

When the Soviet empire collapsed and united Germany rose to the fore, the Slovenes and Croats naturally saw their chance of escape from the domination of Belgrade and for a return to the Mitteleuropa to which they had always previously belonged.
Germany dominates the scene today and Austria is once again a part of Germany. It is not an official anschluss, but the strength of Germany is once again not very different from what it was at the beginning of 1938. German influence is spreading to all the countries that were once under the Prussian empire and under the Hapsburg empire—Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and now Croatia and Slovenia.
I do not suggest that there is a deliberate imperialist policy directed from Bonn. It is a much more natural, spontaneous development. Germany is a dynamic economy and German business men are keen to exploit the opportunities open to them in the countries to the east, particularly the countries where they feel culturally al home, where German is widely spoken. When the German Government jumped the gun and said that they would recognise Croatia and Slovenia whether we did or not, it was largely because of pressures exercised by German business and the German Churches on the German Government. The flag follows trade. However, it was a bad day for Europe when that happened. After all, the ink was hardly dry on the Maastricht agreement. We had all been talking about the importance of a European foreign policy, and they were jumping the gun. In so doing, they pulled the rug from under Lord Carrington's efforts.
We now have the Bosnian situation. The intervention of the United Nations is beginning to build up and the European Community committee is looking into the problem. Where does that German drive stop? I do not know the extent of the lebensraum that Germany quite naturally—I am not talking about the Bonn Government—will seek. It is interesting that Mr. Genscher, who was so keen to recognise Croatia and Slovenia, hesitates about Bosnia. Perhaps he believes that it has reached the fault line between the Hapsburg and Byzantine-Ottoman world to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred.
I would like to say a word about the Serbs. I am all against people making hobbies of Balkan countries. This has bedevilled our studies of them both before and after the first world war. The Serbs are a remarkable nation. Their resistance to the Turks in the 19th century was extraordinary. Their conduct in world war one can only be described as heroic, when one considers the way that they stood up and defeated the Austrian empire over nearly two years. In the second world war, their people rose like one man to throw out the Government who were prepared to make them satellites of Hitler. Much as they fought each other, their resistance movements were the most remarkable in Europe. When Tito broke with the Cominform in 1948, he had the support of the great mass of his people.
We must bear it in mind that this is a formidable country with formidable people, and the decisions that we must take could put us on the wrong side of them. We may have to make such decisions.
Should we recognise Bosnia as an independent country? As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, it has conformed to all the Badinter principles, so I do not see how we can avoid doing so. If we do, we may well find ourselves with a Serbian and Croatian intervention. What


should we do then? How far should we increase the United Nations force? It is salutary to remember that Hitler needed nine divisions of troops to keep the roads open during the war.
Another factor touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) was that there are 2 million Muslims in Bosnia, 2 million Muslims in Kosovo, about 3 million Muslims in Albania, nearly 1 million in Macedonia and half a million in Bulgaria. I do not want to suggest that we are facing an Islamic crisis in the heart of Europe. There is talk about Saudi and Libyan money coming in. I do not believe that there is a crisis, but we should bear it in mind that the Islamic population is not just a relic of the Ottoman empire, but may develop a dynamo of its own.
The link between Bosnia and the Kosovo-Albanian world is the Sahjak of Novipazar. In our somewhat historically illiterate world, we forget that the Sahjak of Novipazar occupied acres of dispatches before world war one. It is a narrow belt of country that links Bosnia to the Albanian Muslim population. I went there many years ago, and in my experience the inhabitants of the Sahjak are Albanian on Monday, Serbian on Tuesday, Christian on Wednesday, Muslim on Thursday, and at the weekend I am not sure what they are. I do not think that they have changed very much.
We must remember that another power is rising: Turkey. Turkish diplomacy is active, not only in the Caucasus and central Asia, but in the Balkans. They recognise Macedonia and Bosnia as independent countries. That does not pose a threat to the gates of Vienna, but if the Turks succeed in doing a deal with their Kurdish minorities to give them access to the oil of Mosul—and I hope they will—they could become quite a strong economic power with the capability of joining the European Community. I was glad that the Government and the Labour party put out the red carpet for Mr. Masud Barzavi when he was here. He may prove a formidable factor.
What is the British interest? Britain has no great economic stake in Yugoslavia, although before the war we had some important mines there. However, we have a considerable political stake. We fought on that country's side at the Salonica front in world war one and contributed to the resistance movements of Tito and Mikhailovic. I do not want to go into details about whether we were right or wrong; the matter has been explored ad nauseam on television. But we were the only people who helped that country. When it broke with the Cominform, we were the first—led by Mr. Attlee with the full support of the Conservative party—to back it up and ensure that it maintained its independence.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am listening with fascination, as I have done on many occasions for the past 30 years. From the right hon. Gentleman's experience, would he say that to commit troops, albeit with United Nations berets, into that mire, would beg the question: in what circumstances could those troops ever be withdrawn?

Mr. Amery: I thought that I went rather further than that when I recalled that Hitler needed nine divisions to keep the roads open. I am not sure what we are embarking on, but we should bear that point in mind.
We do not have a great economic stake in the matter, and we have some political credit. But we are concerned with the balance of power within the European Community. Before the European Community existed, we were concerned with the balance of power in Europe, which was not a community. Now we have to concentrate on the balance of power within Europe. Here our first priority is to restore our relations with France.
From de Gaulle's time onwards, the French have had the idea that Germany is the horse, and they can be the jockey and ride it. The horse has turned into an elephant, and the mahoud who sits on top has nothing like the control of a jockey. Equally, the idea that one can tie down Germany with treaties is as absurd as the Lilliputians' belief that they could tie down Gulliver.
Between the wars, France was the patron of Eastern Europe. Those considerable men—now, alas, forgotten —Benes, Titulescu, and King Alexander all looked to France for support. When France fell, all that they stood for was shattered.
I remember going to a small peasant holding in central Serbia just after the fall of France. I was shown round by an elderly peasant who had one pig. He told me that he called the pig Churchill. I was somewhat offended and asked him why he called it Churchill. He said, "Winter is coming and this is my last hope of eating my way through the winter."
Together, Britain and France, with the help of Turkey, could build up a Balkan community—I shall not call it a Balkan federation—which could look towards association with the European Community to which we belong. That association would be based not only on democracy, but on giving help to the agricultural community which still predominates in all the Balkan countries.
Hon. Members may not always have seen me as a peasant, but I have been an honorary member of the Peasant International since 1940, because, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I was in a position to found the peasant parties of Serbia. Bulgaria and Romania to participate in resistance against the Germans.
It has often been assumed that the Bulgarians are not really part of the progressive element in the Balkans. Perhaps the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will think differently—after all, there was a great Liberal penchant for the Bulgarians—but I remember clearly that the peasant parties before the war and the communists during the war wanted Bulgaria and Serbia to come together. Dimitrov and Tito wanted that: only Stalin stopped it. Perhaps there is work to be done there.
There is certainly a task for us—for Britain, working with France and Turkey, to try to build an association of the countries that lie east of the fault line—if not Mitteleuropa then what we have always called the Balkans. I hope that it will be our Government, but whichever Government take the chair of the European Community next July, I hope that they will make this one of their first priorities.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have the chance to follow the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I am sure that the whole House listened with great care and attention to what he said. We have heard him speak often, but even when we do not


accept his wisdom it is worth listening to. I should like to disagree with parts and agree with other parts of his speech. The whole House will have been fascinated to hear the right hon. Gentleman; no one speaks with greater experience on these and allied matters—which makes it all the more extraordinary when he appears to get them wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman portrayed developments in the Balkans as largely resulting from German policy—a new drang nach osten. German policy is not as formidable as all that, and it does not account for the origin of the difficulties in the Balkans and in Yugoslavia. It is quite possible that the German Government have been trying to determine how best to serve their own interests, but several other Governments have been known to try to do that when they can.
The right hon. Member for Pavilion spoke of British interests, but I believe that he was wrong about the origin of these affairs. While these developments were taking shape, the German Government came along with certain proposals, some right and some wrong—but they do not explain the origins of this business either.
I do not believe, either, that the Yugoslav problem represents a recrudescence or revival of what has happened in the area before. Most of the Balkan countries before the second and the first world wars were rebelling against foreign imperialism, against outside Governments that tried to impose their will on them. The Austrian Government was the most hated of all; Turkey was another. The people of the Balkans sometimes combined against them.
On top of all the human tragedies taking place in the area we must number the tragedy of the fact that Croats and Serbs have begun fighting each other at all. It is not as if they have often fought before or have just been waiting for a chance to start fighting each other. At times they combined to resist Austrian and then German imperialism, not to mention Turkish imperialism. Sometimes they united successfully to that end.
Another reason why I question the right hon. Gentleman's advice in respect of British interests lies in his recommendation that we back the Turks—they look strong, so perhaps we should support them. The Turks have a great deal to answer for in their part of the world. They have been among the worst oppressors for many years. Without wanting to offend the Tory instincts of the right hon. Member for Pavilion, I recall that, when Gladstone and the Liberal party came out against some of the Turkish horrors, they did not receive the support of the Tory party in those far-off times. I believe that it would be short-sighted to look to Turkey as an ally.
Turkey's behaviour towards the Kurds, towards the Greeks and over Cyprus militates against our picking on Turkey as an ally that we want to fold to our bosom merely because of the power that it may be able to exercise in years to come. It would be wiser of the British Government to understand how dangerous are some of the adventurist policies of the Turkish Government. They seized half of Cyprus in an act of aggression; they have committed many other acts of aggression and some horrific crimes against the Kurds. Yet the Turkish Government have not had to face an appropriate response from western countries, which have not denounced them because of our supposed interests in not quarrelling with them too openly.
For all these reasons, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's recipe for what we should do in these

circumstances well advised, in the interests of the world or of this country. The predominant origin of these terrible events in Yugoslavia, the event which primarily, if not solely, led to the destruction of the Yugoslav state, was the letting loose of the federal army. The right hon. Member for Pavilion mentioned the successes of the Yugoslav state and how it successfully resisted the Stalinist empire. I agree that this country gave the Yugoslavs valuable support at that time. Had we not done so, perhaps they would not have made such a successful stand. Nevertheless, it was important for the Balkans and for the rest of the world.
I do not want to go over atrocities committed both ways before, during or after the war. No one can deny that terrible atrocities were committed on both sides, often encouraged by the fascist powers occupying the countries concerned. Still, I believe that the immediate and overpowering cause of recent wretched events was the way in which the federal army was let loose. Either it was an army out of the control of the Belgrade authorities—that would be serious enough—or, if they still controlled it, what ensued was even more shameful and shocking.
This, at any event, is the real reason for the spread of hatred and the revival of similar feelings. It is why they have gone so far that the state cannot be put back together again. Slovenia is an illustration of that. I know that it does not contain so much ethnic variety as the other states, but when, after trying to seize it, the federal army was stopped and withdrew, the question of Slovenia was satisfactorily and decently settled.
That did not happen in Croatia, because the federal army was behaving differently there. It was rampaging through the country, exhibiting wanton barbarism. There were no Serbian minorities who had to be rescued from along the Croatian coast, and in so far as there were pockets of Serbians dwelling there, they were better treated than anyone else during these events. The Croats there understand that, and we must ensure that they do. There are no Serbian minorities in Dubrovnik. That city attracted the spectacular attention of the world because of its beauty, but it has more important features.
The federal army rampaged up the coast and used its might in a way that it thought would enable it to impose itself by widespread intimidation not only there but throughout the country, including Bosnia. It thought that it would be able to do what it wanted. The army is almost 95 per cent. Serbian, and the percentage is more than that when the officers are included. Their doctrines had taught them that military power was all that would count in the end, if they used it with sufficient force and venom. Some member, of the army had practised that in Kosovo. The army thought that, if it did that, it would carry the day.
That did not happen, because many people, some armed and some unarmed, were prepared to die in Croatia and elsewhere and they resisted. That is a much clearer account of what happened and the causes than the deeper historical causes about which the right hon. Member for Pavilion spoke, or any question of the German Government thinking that they could extract advantage from the place. Perhaps the German Government like to see their own interests advanced, but the idea that that was predominant was wrong. What I have described happened, and at that stage the EC countries and the United Nations had to decide what measures to take.
I shall later speak about the conclusion of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) with which 1 strongly agree. The question of recognition for Croatia had to be


settled. It would have been impossible to continue for much longer refusing the Croatian demand. It might have been better if recognition had been given earlier, and in that sense the German Government's recommendation to the European countries had some sense. Those who deny that or question it should look at the votes cast by people in other parts of the country.
I hope that the Macedonians will not exploit their position and cause trouble with the Greeks. They would be foolish to do that, but they had a right to vote for what they did, and if it had not been for the conduct of the federal army and those in Belgrade who backed it, I do not think that Macedonia would necessarily have voted in that way. The Bosnian vote might not have gone the same way three, four or six months ago. However, having had an illustration of the way in which the Serbian-controlled, or uncontrolled forces, operated throughout the area, the Bosnians were bound to vote in that way, and who are we to deny them the right to do so? We cannot say, "You should have waited a hit longer and seen more of your people slaughtered under the methods employed by the federal army."
I hope that every hon. Member knows what happened in Dubrovnik, for example. What the federal army tried to do was one of the worst acts of that nature that has occurred since the bombing of Guernica, not only because of the beauty of the place but because of the people. The federal army tried to intimidate the whole population of Dubrovnik, and thought that if it kept up the bombardment and the threats, the population would have to clear out and the army could go in. If that had happened, most of Dubrovnik and many of the surrounding areas would have been occupied by Serbians and Serbian forces. But the people resisted and said, "We would rather die in our homes than see that happen."
The same kind of resistance was offered in Macedonia and is now developing in Bosnia. It will not be overriden. It has been decided that Yugoslavia cannot be held together and that these separate countries or states, whatever they may be called, must have the right to make the choice by the ballot box. Of course that is extremely difficult where there are such conglomerations of people—nobody can deny that.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who suggested in an intervention that it was wrong for British troops as part of the United Nations force to be sent into such a dangerous situation. Even before the decision was taken, I was in favour of it, and without it the killing would have gone on. If that had happened, the possibility of its uncontrolled spread not only in the Balkans but beyond would have been incalculable.
This action is one of the primary functions of the United Nations. I was present as a reporter in 1945 at the establishment of the United Nations in San Francisco. Conflicts similar to these led people to say that we must have an international authority with the power and the capacity to send in troops speedily and the authority to settle disputes. To some of us, that was almost the first lesson to be learned from the failures between 1918 and 1945. We wanted a real United Nations with the power to act strongly and the backing of a Security Council to carry through what it wanted to do. I know that there are

problems, but if the United Nations had refrained from acting, it would have been a disaster for Yugoslavia and for the remnants of that country, and an even greater disaster for the world at large.
I hope that the Government will remedy some of their past actions. It was not a glorious hour in the history of the British Foreign Office, because, for most of the time when the federal army was engaging in the rampaging acts that I have described and about which the whole world now knows, when Dubrovnik was starving and Cavat was being conquered and the whole coastline was being ravaged, the British Government should have done much more to get food to Dubrovnik. They gave support to the Red Cross, which is natural, but they could have done much more.
Some other countries, such as Italy and France, did more than Britain. It may be said that those countries acted in their own interests. Perhaps they did, but it was an intelligent thing to do. We held back at critical moments. I hope there will be no more such holding back because for the solution to this problem and for the future of the world, we must hope that this United Nations force will have the necessary backing for as long as is necessary to try to establish real peace in the area.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): May I ask for a little voluntary restraint in the length of speeches? I am anxious to call all those who wish to speak, and there is much interest in the debate.

Sir Bernard Braine: It is always a great pleasure to be able to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). We came into politics together, and we have been on many platforms advocating the same causes. It is always stimulating to listen to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and I did so with great interest. The entire House too is deeply in debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for a masterly survey of one of the most intractable problems of our time. He introduced us in his speech to consideration of a most worrying problem. His Committee has performed a real service.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford rightly focused on the situation in Croatia. The entire region, however, is on the edge of a catastrophe. In Hungary, to the north, there has been rapid economic progress since the throwing off of the shackles of communism, but there is deep anxiety about the safety of the Hungarian community in Vojvodina. Similarly, there is great anxiety about the considerable Hungarian population next door in Transylvania. I was in Budapest last summer. One of the most touching experiences that I had was when His Holiness the Pope visited the city. Many Transylvanian Catholics tried to cross into Hungary. When some of these people were told that I was British, they came to me weeping and pleading in broken English, "Help us." They did so because their own situation is dire.
There is concern in Greece too about the threat of Macedonian expansion. Greece is a civilised member of the European Community. There is also deep anxiety about the ill treatment of the Greek minority in northern


Epirus in southern Albania. As I have said, we are dealing with an entire region and not only with the situation in Croatia, bad enough though it is.
There is every reason for anxiety when we come to consider the Serbian minority in Croatia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and I are old enough to remember the war years. Incidentally, during the two world wars, the Serbs were our gallant allies from the beginning. I have never forgotten the resistance of Yugoslavia and Greece during the second world war. I remember an occasion when, in uniform but on leave, I was at a meeting in London on the very day that Yugoslavia declared war on Nazi Germany. It was a meeting of the Conservative central council addressed by Prime Minister Churchill. I remember him beginning dramatically, "Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, this morning Yugoslavia found her soul."
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the resistance of the Yugoslavs and then of the Greeks, followed by the last battles on Crete, delayed the German invasion of Russia by six weeks. As we know, the Nazis never captured Moscow, and that was one of the most decisive chapters in the war; it made a major contribution to the ultimate defeat of the Nazis. We therefore cannot separate ourselves from the brave but gravely troubled nations of which we are talking.
We cannot be unsympathetic to the Serbs. We must remember that Croats in Nazi uniform massacred vast numbers of Serbs. The memory of that is still vivid in Serbian minds. We are dealing with an explosive situation.
Last year I took the chair here at a remarkable meeting organised by a movement called Democratic Encounters. Many Yugoslav residents here were present and many Members of both Houses. I remember calling the first speaker and introducing him as an economist who worked in Belgrade. He was a Macedonian. I called the second speaker, who was a lady teacher of modern languages in Ljubljana university. She was a Slovene. The third speaker was a Croat and the fourth was a Serb. They all spoke from the vantage of their own community and in their part of Yugoslavia, but every one of them said the same thing. They were unanimous that there was no future for their country unless there was recognition of the democratic rights of minorities wherever they lived.
It does not matter whether Yugoslavia is a single nation or whether it is, as in reality, a group of different nations but all linked by history and by blood. The only way forward is for all to recognise that such differences exist. There can be a future for them only if the supremacy of human rights is recognised.
For that reason, I strongly welcome the arrival of the United Nations peace-keeping force. There is no point in saying now that members of that force may have to be there for ever; I am not a pessimist when it comes to human affairs. Who would have thought, two or three years ago, that communism would collapse in the Soviet Union, of all places, and in eastern Europe? Who would have thought that Mr. Gorbachev would go to Honecker at the time of the riots in East German cities and warn, "You will not use force against the rioters, and if you do you cannot count on the support of Soviet troops"?
That message spread like wildfire through eastern Europe. The Poles had been the leaders, and followed the events that took place in Berlin, in Czechoslovakia and then in Hungary. But no shots were fired. No blood was spilt. Why? A British journalist who was present at the

crucial events, whether in Prague, Budapest or Berlin, wrote, "No Bastilles were stormed, no guillotines were erected and lamp posts were used except for lighting the streets." Why did that happen? It was the result of Mr. Gorbachev's warning to Honecker.
Those who despaired and thought that they would never see the end of communism and its associated brutality in eastern Europe must not despair when examining the situation in Yugoslavia. We must keep our heads. It is pretty clear that a United Nations presence will have to be maintained in Yugoslavia for some time to come. In the meantime, there are forces of diplomacy and good will in Europe. The French used to have great influence in the Balkans. Russia still has a great interest in the region. Is it beyond the wit of western leaders now to find ways and means of persuading the troubled peoples of the Balkans to live and work peacefully together? I think not.

Sir Russell Johnston: I agree very much with the remarks of the Father of the House about the problems of the Hungarians in Vojvodina and Romania. I take the opportunity to salute the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who is no longer in his place. I have often had the opportunity to take up his remarks in foreign affairs debates. We shall miss his pugnacious, assertive and informed contributions.
We must remember that Yugoslavia was an artificial creation of the great powers after the first world war. It was sustained after the second world war by the dictatorship, effective but cunning as it was, of Marshal Tito. When the collapse of communism came, it was widely predicted that there would be trouble in Yugoslavia. It was against that background that on 22 May 1991 I asked whether
the British Government would be willing to argue in the European Community in favour of the EC's taking on a role of mediation and perhaps even providing a peace-keeping force.
The Minister—who is present now—replied:
I do not think that the European Community should play such a role."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 919]
I repeated my arguments at greater length in an Adjournment debate on 22 July.
Things have changed, but 1 feel that it should be put on record—I know that this is not a majority view in the House—that, in my view, the Government's approach to what had happened in Yugoslavia, right up to the early part of this year, was misguided: indeed, it could be described as wrong. In the end, as has already been said, we were dragged protesting into recognising Slovenia and Croatia by the Germans—not, I think, for want of good advice, but because of bad judgment.
Let me be fair to the Government: that was the general British view. It was held by the press, by the academic foreign affairs establishment—the Chatham house people—and by many members of the Labour party; although, clearly, it was not held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who has made such an effective speech this evening.
After the destruction of Vukovar—which we should never forget—I set out my arguments in a letter to The Times on 3 December. I shall not read out that letter, but I shall summarise it. I said that what took place was not a civil war, as has been suggested; it was a war between Serbia and Croatia. Part of the "civil war" argument,


advanced at the time by both the European Community and the United States, was the proposition that we all had an interest in keeping Yugoslavia together. I do not agree with that either.
It was also said that we must be even-handed. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the Serbs had guns, tanks, aircraft—the Croatians had no aircraft—and armed ships. It was said that recognition would inflame the Serbians and make matters worse.
By chance, on the very day on which my letter was published in The Times, an article by the Foreign Secretary was published in the same paper. It was entitled "Averting a Balkan tragedy". The Foreign Secretary wrote:
The recognition of Croatia, Slovenia and perhaps other republics may not be far off. But the advantages need careful calculation … If we recognise the republics too soon, we risk detonating the fragile peace in Macedonia and Bosnia".
A number of hon. Members have mentioned that, too. It was widely argued that recognition would lead to an all-out assault on Croatia by the Serbians, involving all the horrors that correspondents such as John Sweeney of The Observer pictured so vividly.
When the Germans pushed us into it—hon. Members who made that suggestion were right—they were accused of flexing their muscles post-Maastricht and of pushing people around. Often, that accusation was made by the very same people who were against the integration of the Germans in the Community decision-making process in regard to foreign affairs and other political matters. In the end, what had been done did not have that effect: hon. Members should remember that. In fact, it provided the basis for a cease fire and a settlement.
It was necessary to demonstrate to the Serbs that they could not win a war of conquest. At the time, I was constantly sending letters to the Foreign Secretary, suggesting an air blockade, a naval blockade or some similar action to prevent the attacks, made from a distance, that Split and Dubrovnik—where, as has been said, there were no Serbs—had to suffer. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) mentioned Kosovo; it was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
Croatia's population is 12 per cent. Serbian, and in Kosovo the proportion is 13·8 per cent. There is not much difference between those two figures, but in Kosovo, the Albanians, who represent an absolute majority, have no rights at all. It was, I suppose, not unreasonable to fear the possibilities. I am not attacking the Serbs per se; that would not be fair. I am not saying that all the Serbs supported Milosevic, or the old nomenklatura that still dominated the army. I do say, however, that we should have been much more active.
I disagreed with the right hon. Member for Guildford, who used an odd expression: he spoke of "self-determination run riot". He also repeated the canard—as I judge it to be—that the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia made matters worse. It did not; in any event, I consider self-determination to be an entitlement, guaranteed by the United Nations. In that context, recognition was right and necessary.

Mr. Norris: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. In considering the desirability or otherwise of recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, does he recognise that one of the concerns expressed by Kosovans

whom I saw, in Pristina and elsewhere, in December relates to the pressure imposed on Milosevic at least to try to rescue something of the dream of a greater Serbia that he has sold to the Serbian people, and thus to increase still further the pressure on the neck of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and Hungarians in Vojvodina? That might prove very dangerous for those poor, oppressed peoples, and they see it as the disadvantage of the premature recognition of Croatia and Slovenia.

Sir Russell Johnston: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that the second part follows. I entirely agree with him about the situation in Kosovo. The desperate situation in which Albania now finds itself is the main reason why there has not been a major problem: The Albanians cannot do anything about it.
Then there is the matter of the Ustashe, and the suggestion that the Croatians were all fundamentally fascists. That is the other argument that is trundled out quite regularly. What the Ustashe did in the last war was awful—dreadful; there is no argument about that. But it is wrong to imply that the present Croatian Government had any intentions of that kind.
I am not defending President Tudjman, who is not of my political persuasion—my contact in Croatia was with liberal democrats—but his Administration were anxious to impress on me their wish for a fair and open system that would protect the human rights of all people. I met many of the members of that Administration in December, when I visited Zagreb—including the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Separovic—and that was the view that they expressed. I do not deny that there was fear among the Serbs, but that fear did not justify what happened in Vukovar and Dubrovnik.
This is my argument. Given the failure of Lord Carrington's efforts-I am sure that we all salute them —to achieve peace, the European Community, acting perhaps through the United Nations, should have been prepared to do something about the carnage that was being wrought by the Serbian army. On 4 December, in the Western European Union, I quoted from The Independent—which, in its turn, had quoted from a report by EC monitors. I do not think that it was ever published, apart from the press; I have never seen a copy.
The Independent stated:
EC monitors have no doubt the Serbs bear greater responsibility".
The European Community faced four choices, said the report:
to continue the monitors' mission, though it is increasingly ineffective; to withdraw … to generate a new UN or European initiative; or to deter the Yugoslav Army by force. Amplifying this last point the report says: 'the warship that fires on a defenceless city from a safe distance out to sea … must be put in a situation where it knows it can do so at the cost of being promptly sent to the bottom …'".
I said that it was
that kind of direct and blunt talking and the presentation of choices
that we needed.
I warmly recommend to the House the first-class editorial in today's Financial Times, which sets out a positive way forward:
Independence for Bosnia will be meaningless unless the territorial integrity of the republic can be guaranteed. Therefore the EC, if it goes ahead with recognition, must serve notice that it will not countenance claims on Bosnian territory".


with all that that means.
I shall sum up my position. First, we should not belittle or mock self-determination. Secondly, we should face the fact that peacekeeping will be a necessary role in which the European Community will have to be increasingly involved. Thirdly, we must recognise Bosnia and Macedonia, and concentrate on ensuring human rights there.
We must stop talking about the British interest and the German interest. We must talk about the human rights interest, instead of those old-fashioned issues. The Muslim issue must not be over-dramatised, either. On Tuesday night in Vienna, I had dinner with the Albanian ambassador—I had never met an Albanian before. He was a most interesting, intelligent and constructive man, who had been taking part in the negotiations in Vienna for 18 months, and he stressed strongly the fact that the idea that Iranian-style fundamentalism was operating in Albania was complete and utter nonsense. The right hon. Member for Pavilion also said that.
My last point is that territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs are dead doctrines. Democracy is about letting people decide and defending their right to do so, provided that they do not impose their decision on others. It is a sad fact that hatred lasts a long time, so the United Nations may have to stay a long time. But what is the alternative? The alternative would be to do

Mr. Michael Mates: It is all too rare in this place that in a short debate such as this there are so many distinguished contributions from some of the giants of the House. I for one am privileged to have been able to hear them, and now to be able to take part in the debate. Without in any way wishing to be sycophantic, I can only say that the next Parliament will be greatly the poorer because the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) will not be here still to give us the huge amount of advice that we have had from them over the years.
Almost for the first time, I can tell the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent that I agreed with almost everything he said. He and I have often debated such matters without often being in total agreement, but I am in complete agreement with what he has said today.
I shall intervene only briefly in the debate on the narrow point of the British military contribution to the United Nations force. Over the past few weeks, especially following the Secretary-General's recommendation to the Security Council, it has been widely reported that we shall make a substantial contribution of service personnel to the proposed United Nations force to be deployed in Yugoslavia. However, nothing has been said to the House on the subject, or to the Select Committee on Defence, which has a special interest in such matters.
The Select Committee returned a couple of weeks ago from a two-day visit to the British forces in Germany—during which time, coincidentally, we met our sister committee, the defence committee of the Bundestag. We had an interesting debate on the matter, and mentioned the rather strange fact that, although the Germans were the people forcing the pace of European action, now that action is to be taken they will tell us that they are the only ones who are unable to play any part in the consequences

of what they so strongly advocated. Germany's position on the deployment of troops outside her borders is an interesting paradox which we all hope will be resolved sooner or later.
When we returned, we asked the Ministry of Defence for some sort of briefing, or some information about the United Kingdom component of the proposed force. We suggested either a formal or an informal appearance of a Minister or senior official at our meeting at the end of February so that we could get some idea of what was being proposed. The Committee had hoped thereby to be able to assist the House in today's debate by making available some sort of brief document.
Alas, Ministers judged that
there is very little at this stage on which the Committee could usefully be briefed, either in private or open session".
We were told that the Government were likely to want to report to the House once agreement had been reached with the United Nations, but since then there has been silence—although, according to a written answer given last Friday, 28 February, to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) the Ministry was still discussing what form the United Kingdom contribution might take.
We understand, again from the press, that there are anxieties about the costs of the force, and who is to meet them. That is right. I am sure that such matters should be settled first. Our recent experience in the Gulf has no doubt shown us, as well as our American and French allies, and the military planners, how much time, trouble and money can be saved by sensible use of existing civilian infrastructure on such occasions, and the advantages to be gained if one can obtain host nation support.
Yugoslavia is well endowed with much that would be useful to a force, so I have no quarrel with the idea of taking time to get things right. However, I do not find it so understandable that the House has been told so little about the assets that we have proposed to make available, and the conditions under which British troops will be expected to serve. To put the matter in context, a number of British troops are currently deployed under United Nations auspices, notably the 800-strong United Kingdom contingent with the United Nations forces in Cyprus, which the Select Committee last visited in January 1989, and which has been there for almost 30 years. There are also contingents with the multinational force and observers in Sinai, with the observer force in the western Sahara.
Shortly, I gather, there will be a contingent in Cambodia, as part of the United Nations effort there. We have recently contributed to mine clearance training in Pakistan and to the United Nations transition assistance group in Namibia. We provide logistic support— that phrase may understate how crucial the support is—for the United Nations forces in Lebanon and on the Golan heights, and for the United Nations forces in Cyprus as a whole. That is in addition, of course, to the considerable Royal Marine contribution to the relief and protection of the Kurds in the wake of the Gulf war.
Those peacekeeping tasks, which primarily, although not exclusively, fall on the Army, are an important contribution which the services make on our behalf, and one which all commentators agree will increase both in total and as a proportion of other tasks in the decades ahead.
In its thorough and excellent report, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs warned of the danger that the United Nations peacekeeping force would be unable to retire from the area once it was established, and that Serbian areas in Croatia could become
uncontrolled with a virtually permanent large force.
It is agreed that the force will remain in Yugoslavia until a negotiated settlement is achieved. Despite the heroic efforts of my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Carrington, that could still be a very long haul.
Those two aspects—the likelihood that the United Kingdom contribution on this occasion will be the first of several, if not the first of many, and the possibility that it will become as established a part of the United Nations peacekeeping structures as our force in Cyprus has proved to be—lead us to be especially interested both in what we are to contribute and the detailed arrangements that will be made.
In the middle of February the press carried several broadly similar articles on the likely British contribution, stating that it would consist primarily of Royal Engineers, Royal Signallers and the Royal Corps of Transport, but that there would be no combat infantry or armour, and that the total number of personnel would be about 1,000. The press also speculated—I suppose that it was no more than that—that senior officers had hoped to field a complete self-supporting infantry battalion group, but that commitments, especially the two additional battalions in Northern Ireland, ruled that out.
Mention was also made of the provision of several C130 Hercules aircraft, and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary escorted by HMS Arrow. Two weeks ago the Daily Express reported:
British sappers and RAF transport planes will fly to Yugoslavia in the next two weeks to join the UN peacekeeping force".
Have they? Was that all pure invention, or were Ministers, senior officers or officials willing to tell journalists yet unwilling to tell the House?
Assuming that that is the type of contribution envisaged, a number of questions arise which the Select Committee on Defence would usually ask Ministers in the next few weeks. However, we are in the dying days—or what might be the dying days—of a Parliament, so the Committee's functions can best be fulfilled if I now ask at least some of those questions in the hope that answers might be forthcoming, either later this evening or in writing at an early date.
What are the command arrangements within the force below the level of force commander? What will be the rank and function of the senior United Kingdom commander, and to whom in the United Kingdom chain of command will he be responsible? On security, the Secretary-General's report suggests that the force will hire four fixed-wing aircraft and 26 helicopters. They will presumably be unarmed, so what protection will the force—especially the United Kingdom elements—have against air attack?
United Nations documents say that the normal rules for the bearing and use of arms will apply. Will Ministers say whether all our personnel will be armed for self-protection? What rotation arrangements are envisaged for personnel—the usual six months? What

allowances will be paid? Will any reservists be called out? What medical services will they need to have made available?
I have no doubt that the thorough planning which has occurred during the past few months will ensure that our contribution to the force is well planned and well thought out and will, as always, demonstrate to the world at large the outstanding qualities of our professional armed forces. I regret that information is so scarce and that our chances to do what we can to generate a better understanding of what is involved is so limited.
In the hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions, it only remains for me, on behalf of the Select Committee on Defence, to wish any of our service men who are sent to do what will be a very difficult task the very best of good fortune.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I associate myself fully with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) about the contribution that British troops may make to the United Nations force in Croatia and Yugoslavia.
The Father of the House reminded us of the amazing convulsive changes that have occurred in the past few years. As we end this Parliament and face a general election, I wonder what we would have thought about a parliamentary candidate in 1987 or about an hon. Member at the beginning of 1987 if he had said that in the lifetime of this Parliament we would see the reunification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a war in Iraq, a white president in South Africa abolishing apartheid and the prospect of 1,000 British tr000ps ending up on the Bosnian-Croatian borders to attempt to create peace and harmony in those far-off lands. I think that he might have been the victim of the men in white coats who would have carried him away. He would not have been heard with the seriousness that he deserved.
We have witnessed those very events. As a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it has been my privilege to witness and to try to report on them during the past four dramatic years. On behalf of my hon. Friends, may I say what a pleasure and privilege it has been to serve on that Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
This report was one of the hardest to prepare and to write, because we were facing issues that we did not believe that we would have to face in Europe again. That belief is shared outside among the young generation. The collapse of the old post-war order established by Yalta which created the division of power between east and west and suppressed the tremendous variety of feelings and national identities within Europe is bringing about a range of new problems with which we have not had to deal for the best part of 30 or 40 years. Members of the Committee, people in Europe and those on the international scene must consider whether there are any ways in which new political arrangements and a new order can be established—even in the wider Europe—to accommodate the problems, difficulties and potential conflicts that arise.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) rightly said that we must begin by realising that the sense of self-determination, national


consciousness and national identity is not a temporary phenomenon. It is basic and fundamental to the human condition and to society.
That point was vividly and brilliantly described in a recent essay by Isaiah Berlin called "The Bent Twig". It describes the thinking of the 18th-century German philosophers who, in some ways, were the creators of the best aspects of national consciousness and identity. He writes that one such philosopher argued
that every human condition had its own unique shape and pattern. Its members were born in a stream of tradition which shaped their emotional and physical development…There was a central historically developing pattern that characterised the life and activity of every identifiable community
and that expressed itself in the nation state.
If we do not recognise the fact that what is now emerging had been suppressed by the universalism of communism which tried to ignore separate identities and feelings, we shall not be able to decide how best to arrange our affairs and possibly create a new order in Europe and beyond.
Talking to my children and the younger generation, I find that they are astonished that, as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, arguments are being expressed in what they thought were old-fashioned concepts. They thought that such concepts were for Africa—African nationalism is throwing off imperial domination—but they did not think that it would be part of the new European experience. Only the older generation understood what Bosnia-Herzegovina was about and what the problems were.
The Committee had to ask whether, despite the tremendous fragmentation and the fact that there were to be different expressions of freedom through national identity and the principles of self-determination, there was a better way to handle matters than we had witnessed in Yugoslavia. Unlike the Foreign Office, I do not believe that Yugoslavia is sui generis. Although Yugoslavia may be an extreme, the issues that it raises must be considered in other contexts.
When we put that question to witnesses, including the Foreign Secretary, we were understandably given a cautious and, indeed, minimalist view. The Committee's report quotes the Foreign Secretary as saying:
I do not think we should have standing machinery for resolving conflict as we have just been describing because I think they are all different. I think in practice the countries concerned have to work out the way in which they are going to live together.
Of course, the ideal would be internal self-determination by peaceful resolution of conflicts within the communities, but it has not happened and it may not happen. What contribution can the international community and political institutions make to assist and perhaps help to avoid conflicts of the type that we have witnessed in Yugoslavia?
I agree with hon. Members—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—who said that we have at last rediscovered the real function of the United Nations. It is now beginning to play the role that those who built and promoted it after the war meant it to play. It is a major international role, and I wholeheartedly support the commitment that we are making as part and parcel of the United Nations force. However difficult the task and whatever mire the force may go into, it could at least create some stability, but we must go further and offer other alternatives.
While drawing up our report, we discovered that although communities are now breaking up, although there is fragmentation and although people want to govern themselves and decide what type of institutions and political society they wish to create —whether Croatian, Slovenian or Serbian—they also want, paradoxically, to belong to something bigger. They want to belong to a bigger community of one kind or another. With that fragmentation and self-determination come requests to belong to NATO and the European Community. In a curious and interesting way, the new smaller self-governing communities that are emerging from the collapse of the Soviet domination of many of those territories will seek to belong to workable and successful organisations and communities that are bigger than themselves.
We have something to offer in two areas. First, we can offer security through association and involvement in a broader and redefined NATO. The Select Committee found that the new communities want to belong to a community that is broader than NATO—to a North Atlantic Co-operation Council. Secondly, there is no doubt that the new communities of Croatia, Slovenia and others that might follow, will want to belong to a broader and wider European Community for economic and political reasons.
The combination of the United Nations role in the peace-making context and the institutions such as the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, NATO and the European Community offers an opportunity to embrace a new order and create meaningful political relationships that may resolve some of those conflicts instead of their being resolved through the use of guns or armed conflict. That may be a cock-eyed and optimistic view, but at least the desire of those smaller communities to belong to larger communities offers an opportunity to encourage development.
We should make it a condition that, to belong to the European Community in its broader sense, to the North Atlantic Co-operation Council or to CSCE, those communities should accept a series of values, a form of behaviour and a way of resolving conflicts different from the way in which conflicts have been resolved in Yugoslavia. We should use the desire to belong to broader communities to change behaviour. Surely that is the great political value of the European Community.
Even in my political lifetime, Spain, Portugal and Greece have been governed by dictators. However, they will no longer accept dictatorship, because they realise that they cannot have a dictatorship and also belong to the broader European Community. If we can create the same meaningful relationship between the new smaller states and communities that will emerge as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union in respect of the broader community of Europe and NATO, and at the same time, impose the condition that those communities should resolve their conflicts differently from what has happened in Yugoslavia, there is real hope for a new European order.

Mr. John Gorst: I have listened with interest and sympathy to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he is right. However, will he consider one awkwardness that might arise? Is there not a danger that disputes between people on a small local level might be escalated to the larger local level to which they might


subsequently belong if they follow the line of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)?

Mr. Rowlands: I understand that, but there is a greater danger if we return to the instability of the old order when other nation states begin to play politics in and around those conflicts. It is better to consider the issue in the greater community terms that I have described. That is why I strongly support our contribution to the United Nations and its role.
I hope and believe that, in the context of Europe, we will be able to create a new European order. Yugoslavia came perhaps too soon with regard to such developments and institutions, but let us hope that we will be ready to handle such issues better in future.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): It might be for the convenience of the House if we were to conclude the debate at 7 pm. A number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak and, for that reason, I do not intend to speak for longer than 15 minutes. Therefore, I will not answer all the points that have been raised and I hope that the House will forgive me for that.
May I begin by echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said about three very distinguished speeches by three right hon. Members who will be retiring at the end of this Parliament. Between them, they muster more than 120 years of service. We will all miss the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braille), the Father of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). They have illuminated this debate and we have discovered some strange things: I did not use to believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was a founder member of the Peasant party. I hope very much that those three right hon. Members will continue to participate in the political debate in this country—and perhaps from another place.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on focusing on this subject and giving the House an opportunity to debate it. The issue is very grave. We are all extremely relieved that there is now a cease fire in place in what was Yugoslavia. However, we must recognise that it is very fragile and that it has been breached. Consequently, we must recognise that it could break down and that fighting could recommence in a pretty disastrous manner.
Very broadly, the United Kingdom Government, the European Community and the United Nations have a twin-track policy, the first element of which is to encourage the parties to participate in the negotiations under the chairmanship of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington. The House believes that that conference is an important contribution to the solution of the problems in what was Yugoslavia. The second track is that we strongly support the deployment of a peace keeping force. That is essential, and I very much welcome the Security Council's decision to deploy such a force.
I will try to respond to several questions which have properly been raised during the debate. First, I want to

refer to a very important question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and echoed for my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. They wanted to know about the level of the United Kingdom contribution to the peacekeeping force. The answer is that we have not yet reached a conclusion.
The United Nations has made it plain that it has no present need for infantry. We are considering how we can help to provide support troops in the form of a contribution by specialist troops in an area in which we have particular expertise. Exactly how we might respond will depend on further discussions with the United Nations secretariat and on the advance party which will arrive next week. There will be 20 British representatives in the advance party.
Among the issues that will have to be considered are the security arrangements for any British contingent. We will reach a conclusion after the advance party has reported. It follows that I cannot respond to the detailed questions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire because the decision has not yet been taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford asked the very important question whether the involvement of the European Community assisted. I believe that it did, in a number of important ways. First, and perhaps most obviously, the monitors were deployed and they had an important role to play. They were very courageous and, as the House will know, a number of them died. Secondly —again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford picked up this point—the trade sanctions that we imposed concentrated the minds of the participants in the war.
Thirdly, and most important of all, we made it plain on many occasions that the European Community in particular and the international community in general would not accept the forcible alteration of frontiers. That fact, which was impressed upon the minds of Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Tudjman, has had a very important impact on the thinking of the leaders of those two republics.
I understand the argument of those who have suggested that our recognition of Croatia was premature. The House will know—I make no secret about it; nor did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—that we were very cautious about the process of recognition of Croatia, because we believed that it would remove one of the sanctions on President Tudjman. For that reason, we pressed caution upon our colleagues within the Community between August of last year and January of this year. However, by January of this year, it became plain that many states within the Community were determined to recognise Croatia. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent suggested that the position by then had become inevitable. The right hon. Gentleman was right; it was inevitable. It was right to do it at that time, and we would have gained nothing by withholding our own recognition. On that matter I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports the position of Her Majesty's Government.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) suggested that we did not make sufficient use of financial leverage that the European Community had over Croatia, Serbia and the other republics. I do not think that that is correct. We have and have had financial leverage which we have used. Perhaps I might remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we suspended the trade advantages that what was Yugoslavia had in its dealings with the European


Community. We reinstated them in so far as they related to republics which co-operated with the work of the United Nations and the European Community, and we have, of course, future relations. The House will see that we shall move more swiftly towards association agreements with regard to Slovenia than, for example, with regard to Croatia, unless it is clear that Croatia is going to respond quickly to the chapter 2 requirements in my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington's draft treaty.
I now respond to a question that was advanced by the hon. Member for Swansea, East in respect of the monitors. I have already said that I believe that they have made an important and brave contribution. It is not our intention to withdraw them. It is our intention that they should stay for some time ahead—we cannot say quite how long—and that they should operate in those areas where the United Nations peacekeeping force is not operating.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Kosovo. Again, that matter was raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). It is an extremely serious issue. As the House knows, the Albanians form a substantial majority in the Kosovo—more than 90 per cent. I agree with what right hon. and hon. Members have said to the effect that the political and human rights of Albanians in the Kosovo are of great importance and must be addressed within the context of the peace conference.
I can assure the House that that is the formal view of Her Majesty's Government, and I know it to be the view of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington. I know, too, that it is the collective view of Ministers within the Community.

Mr. Norris: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I would rather not give way, as I shall be very strict with myself, and I shall sit down, almost regardless, at the end of 15 minutes.
Bosnia was referred to by hon. Members, most notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. He asked rhetorically whether we recognised Bosnia. That is an extraordinarily difficult question, and the argument is properly balanced. My right hon. Friend summarised the arguments with clarity and fairness. On the one hand, if we recognise Bosnia, there will be the substantial risk that the Serbs will fight. On the other hand, if we do not recognise Bosnia, we will, in a sense, neglect the fact that we encouraged them to hold a referendum to determine their view, and what would be the view of the Croats and the Muslims who clearly want independence and have so declared that wish by a substantial majority? It will be extraordinarily difficult to withhold recognition for any extended period. We must focus on questions that are addressed to keeping the peace in that part of what was Yugoslavia.
As I have been talking about Bosnia, it might be helpful if I say something about Macedonia, which has also been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. Again, we need to proceed cautiously, but we must bear in mind the views of the Badinter report. In effect, Mr. Badinter reported that there was no good reason why Macedonia should not be recognised. The Greeks are very concerned about that recognition. My right hon. Friend the Member

for Castle Point urged those considerations with great clarity and with his normal elegance, and he has a considerable point.
However, it will be very difficult to withhold recognition of Macedonia for an extended period. It is important to try to reconcile the conflicting interests of Greece on the one hand and Macedonia on the other hand. That can be done, and we need to try to do it.
Another important issue that has been raised is Serbian rights in Croatia. That point was addressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Pavilion. It is absolutely central to the matter. The rights of the Serbs in Croatia are of critical importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point was right when he reminded the House of the history of the second world war. That matter plays an important part in the draft treaty prepared by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington. The House will know that chapter 2 of that draft treaty provides for autonomous status for the Serbian regions within Croatia.
It is absolutely essential that we all bend our collective efforts and wills to trying to protect the rights of minorities, and for those purposes, Serbian minorities in Croatia. That is a duty for us all. We must continue to impress upon President Tudjman the fact that, unless he agrees to do that and to comply with the requirements contained in chapter 2 of that draft treaty, he will find that relations with the European Community—and, indeed, with the rest of the world—are very much less cordial than he would otherwise wish them to be.
I have given myself a 15-minute time limit; I have nearly reached the end of it. I apologise to those right hon. and hon. Members to whom I have not been able to give a considered response. That is due not to discourtesy but to lack of time. I conclude by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for giving us an opportunity to consider such an important issue.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on the excellence of the report that was produced by his Committee. Although I agree with the sentiments that were expressed by the Minister, I must say that I am at odds with him in respect of his belief that we were correct in recognising Croatia. I believe that it was a very great error. The main motive that led the Government to recognise Croatia was the need to have the support of the Germans for what we required under the Maastricht treaty. That was an undesirable feature of a policy which, until that point, had been rightly even-handed.
When I came back from Yugoslavia last August, I reported to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I allowed Ministers to see what was in the report. We were more or less in agreement. Indeed, I received a letter from the Minister saying that he agreed with most of what I said. I said:
recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia should be withheld. One might get away with recognising Slovenia, but the Serbs in Croatia would regard this as a sell-out as far as they are concerned and full-scale civil war would be almost inevitable.
I regret that we gave way to the Germans. I have a lot of time for Mr. Genscher. He has been forthright and wise


in his foreign policy towards the Soviet Union in the period of its break-up. But I remind the Minister that I tabled a question on 20 February
To ask the Secretary of State upon what principles he will base his policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina after its proposed referendum on 28th February.
In part of his reply, referring to the guidelines adopted by EC Ministers in December, the Under-Secretary said that the state would have to
guarantee the rights of minorities; respect the inviolability of frontiers except by peaceful agreement".—[Official Report, 20 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 227.]
None of us would disagree with that, but none of those principles appertained to Croatia.
Indeed, the Badinter report made it clear that the arbitration commission was unhappy about the situation in Croatia. It said:
Regarding Croatia, the Commission has concluded that: —the constitutional law of 4 December 1991 does not cover in their entirety all of the points in the draft Convention of 4 November 1991, in particular those included in Chapter II, article 2C under the heading 'special status';
—it is consequently incumbent on the authorities of the Republic of Croatia to add to the constitutional law…With this reservation, Croatia satisfies the required conditions.
I maintain that on 15 January we were forced into recognition by pressure from Germany. I believe that we recognised Croatia because of Maastricht and not through the independent will of our Foreign Ministers.
Since then, in a well-respected Croatian newspaper, Zagrebacki Vjestnik, Miroslav Krec wrote on 12 February 1992:
Growing dissatisfaction is becoming evident on the part of people of Moslem, Serbian, Montenegrin and other nationality (including Croatian), who are becoming increasingly vocal 'foreign citizens' as they pursue rights lost overnight in the very Republic in which many of them were born.
How does one explain to an ever increasing number of dissatisfied people who these days queue for hours for the right of citizenship, that overnight they have become permanently resident foreigners in the Republic of Croatia, even though they were born in Croatia and spent their whole lives in Croatia?
This is how many people in Croatia are being treated according to the Law on Croatian Citizenship and who, as a result of its provisions, are unable to preserve their basic human rights: they are unable to obtain a Croatian passport, their property rights are unresolved and they have no right to vote—even after 40 or 50 years of life and work in Croatia".
That is the situation as seen by a Croatian writer in a respected newspaper in Croatia today.
There are many well-justified fears that there are yet to emerge in Croatia many more extremist opinions even than that of Franjo Tudjman. In some instances, schools have been renamed. One school has been renamed in honour of Mile Budak, Foreign Minister in the Ustashe Government during the second world war—a Government, incidentally, who were on the opposite side to us in that confict.
The Minister must see that the final remarks of his speech this evening are given full force. The Croatian Government must be told that human rights infringements —for infringements they are—must be put right and that we are not content simply to regard Milosevic as the worse of two criminals, so to speak. I believe that both Milosevic and Tudjman have a considerable amount to answer for.
Those of us who have known Yugoslavia over an extended period—in my case since the early 1960s—know full well that, despite all the difficulties of living under the communist Government, the Yugoslav regime was one of the more liberal in eastern Europe. There was some freedom of speech. I spoke to Milovan Djilas when I was in Yugoslavia in August. He was saddened by what was happening even though he was a leading dissident in the Tito years.
The great danger in eastern Europe now is a rise of nationalist leaders. It may be a more considerable danger than what went before. Such nationalist leaders know that, by playing the old-fashioned nationalist card and harking back to before not the second but the first world war, they can harness opinion in their name.
Kosovo has been mentioned. I agree with what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) had to say on the subject. Milosevic made his name by exploiting Serbian nationalism against the majority of the people in Kosovo province. There is a danger in giving Macedonia recognition. It is a true that the present Government in Macedonia seem a perfectly responsible, respectable Government with no territorial ambitions, but once party politics enters the scene in a free and independent Macedonia, who knows whether a Tudjman or Milosevic might not be lurking in the wings? Such a person might see a possibility of gaining power in his country by exploitation and by extending his eyes across the frontier into Greece, Albania or Bulgaria.
It was in our interests to stand by Yugoslavia. Way back, when I visited the Minister in the Foreign Office the year before last, I said that we should promote Yugoslavia's interests as a future member of the Council of Europe and suggested that we should have a special association treaty, and so on. Such suggestions tended to be ignored in those days. Perhaps we were more concerned about what was coming up in the Gulf.
I pay my respects to Lord Carrington for what he has done and is doing in the peace conference. I hope that the peace conference and the European Community can bring the peoples of Yugoslavia together again in some loose form of confederation. To have nationalities springing up all over the place giving encouragement to groups in other parts of eastern Europe, and even in western Europe is highly dangerous to peace in the world. It is in our interests to seek to put the pieces together.

Mr. David Harris: Like many others, I am privileged to take part in the debate because almost certainly it will be the last occasion when my right hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will speak in a foreign affairs debate in the House. We are all conscious of that.
I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). I have long been aware of his deep interest in and knowledge of Yugoslavia. I agree with his concluding words. If I may say so to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, the view expressed by the hon. Member for West Derby was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr.


Howell), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, had in mind when he spoke of the dangers of states splitting up into small units.
To those of us who are interested in the development of the European Community a multiplicity of independent small states will pose a particular problem. If they are all eager to enter the European Community, it will pose a major challenge.
I quarrel on one point with the hon. Member for West Derby. He said that our Government's recognition of Croatia and Slovenia was somehow a deal with the Germans to ease the way at Maastricht. I am sure that that is not the case. We and the rest of the European Community were bounced by the Germans into recognising Croatia. It was premature recognition. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State rightly said that we had adopted a cautious approach to recognition. But in the last period of our caution we were stampeded and we had no alternative if we wanted to maintain a unified European Community line. The Secretary of State used almost those words to the Select Committee.
I share the fears of many hon. Members who have spoken that, although it is right for a United Nations force to go into Yugoslavia, it will be a long time before it withdraws. Consider the Cyprus example. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, said, it is nearly 30 years since the United Nations forces went into Cyprus.
The use of United Nations forces often takes the pressure off the need for a settlement between the two warring factions in the area. I am afraid that that will be the case in Yugoslavia. The force will probably take the political heat out of the situation, we and the world community will quickly become bored with the subject and another United Nations force—with Britain rightly participating in it—will be left there for many years, possibly for decades. I do not think that that is a good solution.
Finally, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, let me say that although the debate has concentrated on Yugoslavia, the report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs went wider, and it is a pity that we have not had time to debate some of the other huge issues. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that, when we were planning and deciding to carry out the report last summer, intense fighting had not broken out in Yugoslavia, the coup had not taken place in the Soviet Union and nor had its break-up.
As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the great rush of events that we have witnessed in this Parliament and in the past year have been exciting, but they have also been challenging and dangerous. I do not think that anyone has mentioned the fact that, even though there has not been a large migration from certain parts of eastern Europe, that remains a danger. It could and probably will happen in time, and it will provide us with an enormous challenge, especially in the European Community.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall keep my remarks brief by focusing on one issue which has been mentioned during the debate—the implications of the crisis and the series of events for the attempts of the

European Community to develop a common foreign and security policy. One thread of argument has run through the debate, implying a criticism of the Community in those attempts, and saying that what has happened with regard to Yugoslavia represents a failure on the part of the Community. I wish to argue strongly against that imputation.
The most remarkable aspect of the approach of the various countries of the Community towards the events in Yugoslavia is the way in which they have bent over backwards to maintain a united and common approach to the problem. They have tried to march in step when tackling the problem. Why have the various European countries done that, despite the obvious tensions? We have all mentioned the German angle, Germany's influence and its attitude to the recognition of Croatia. Despite that, there has been an attempt to maintain unity. Why?
First, it has been recognised that all efforts to alleviate the problem would have been fruitless without that sort of common front. The only way in which European countries may have a positive influence on the situation in Yugoslavia is by maintaining their unity and by operating through the Community. By so doing, each country has had a much greater influence than it could have had individually.
The second main reason for an impetus for a common approach was simply to avoid the real danger that, if countries took different approaches, smaller quarrels and conflicts could have merged into greater conflicts between the countries of western Europe. Surely that has been the historical pattern in Europe, especially in the Balkans. If the great powers—as they used to be called—begin to pick and choose different sides in a conflict which is restricted or localised to the Balkans, a small conflict may be magnified into a more dangerous dispute between larger countries. We see the prospect of that happening in Yugoslavia, in the dispute over the recognition of Macedonia. The Greek Government, acting from a purely national perspective, take one view, which other countries in western Europe find difficult to accept and to acknowledge.
A common approach by the European Community on tackling such problems is the only way in which we can have a positive influence on the resolution of those difficulties. The lesson to come out of the Yugoslav crisis is not the failure of a common foreign and security policy in the Community but the urgent need for one.

Mr. Steve Norris: In the one minute which I shall allow myself, I must welcome the observation of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State when he made it clear that the British Government regard the settlement of the plight of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo as an essential part of the settlement for the former Yugoslavia. Having visited Kosovo in December, I know that their plight is desperate and is not to be underestimated. That is the forgotten region of Yugoslavia, and the irony is that that is probably because they have so far desisted from taking violent action against the Serbians, who have dominated them so ruthlessly for so many years. My hon. and learned Friend's remarks were most welcome.
In my experience, this has been the best debate of the past two Parliaments. To date, every speech has been of superb quality and, like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have found it stimulating and enjoyable.

Mr. William Cash: I shall also speak briefly. One of my constituents is trapped in Yugoslavia and her parents telephoned me today. I have raised the matter with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I hope that every conceivable effort will be made to protect her and to get her and her children out in extremely difficult circumstances.
It seems that there is at least one ray of hope in this tragic situation. In fine speeches, my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) looked back to similar situations in 1940, but the position now is different. We have the advantage of the European Community and the United Nations, in its new mode.
I do not believe in a federal Europe. Some of the problems in Yugoslavia are a result of that form of federalism, which does not work. Now, we are in a completely different situation from that in 1940. Although there may be a background of German influence, none the less there is a probability—I hope a certainty—that we can combine national fervour with real democracy, and thereby help to mitigate the consequences of human nature.

Mr. David Howell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Howell: With the leave of the House, I wish to thank right hon. and hon. Members for the way in which they have received the report.
In the debate we have had the benefit of wise minds and long memories, and we should not be too surprised that they have disagreed with each other except in the one conclusion that has been generally agreed: we must support the UN as it goes into the terrifying situation to stop the killing. If we can wish the UN forces godspeed in that effort, our debate will have been worth while.
The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Northern Ireland

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

7 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am very glad that we are having this debate today. It is taking place at the request of the leaders of three of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and is of a somewhat different nature from our usual debates. Normally, they take place in connection with a particular piece of legislation or in response to events in the Province. On this occasion, we have a welcome opportunity for a wide-ranging and perhaps more reflective debate. I propose to keep my remarks relatively brief, but it may assist the House, if I give a general appraisal of the Government's general approach.
It is a paradox that, despite the vicious terrorist attacks which occur in Northern Ireland, numerous studies over the years have shown the Province to be among the most socially stable and law-abiding communities in the western democracies. There are strong local communities and a long tradition of good neighbourliness. Northern Ireland people are known for their work ethic and their strong Christian values. Northern Ireland has achievements in the industrial, agricultural, academic, medical and other spheres of which it can justifiably be proud.

Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State has referred to the incidents of violence that have occurred. He will be aware of the massive car bomb that exploded in my constituency this morning. He will know that that caused extensive damage to many properties in the heart of the commercial centre of the town. They will have to be demolished. However, I am pleased to tell him that the Union flag, although somewhat tattered, still flies on its flagpole in the centre of the town.
In that spirit, the traders will rebuild their businesses. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that they will receive not just interim compensation, as I trust they will, but will be assisted to get back into business even from temporary premises as quickly as possible? Will he also instruct the appropriate authorities to cut the red tape so that my traders are able to get back into business?

Mr. Brooke: I intend to refer to that event later, but I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific questions which relate to compensation and help to get back into business. The Government have already reacted to the bombing in Lurgan. Fourteen loss adjusters and a team from the Northern Ireland Office were on site this morning to ensure that people have the advice to make claims, which will be processed as quickly as possible. In the Province, there is a tradition of rapid response to such situations. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that.
I was referring to the achievements of the Province. Northern Ireland has the lowest rate of infant mortality in the United Kingdom and one of the highest rates of success in renal transplants. We lead the world in certain neurosurgical techniques. In mathematics, Northern Ireland children at 11 and 15 out-perform their counterparts in England and Wales. They get better results more generally at A-level and contribute to the highest level of participation in higher education in the United Kingdom where, again, success at national level attends


them. The uptake of the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme is higher in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales, as is charity giving. Levels of indoor sport participation are the highest in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland pioneered the vertical take-off jet, the modern farm tractor, the ejection seat, the portable heart defibrillator, the four-wheel drive and the pneumatic tyre. I am told that tonic water was also invented there, to the benefit of sobriety throughout the world.
At the same time, overlying those attributes are the stresses of which we are all aware, arising from the fact that Northern Ireland is a divided society. Perhaps the most fundamental structural problem in Northern Ireland is how to create the conditions where all sections of the community can live together in harmony. If that fundamental issue can be addressed successfully, it would lay a firm foundation for lasting peace in the Province. Much has been achieved in recent years to reduce historical suspicions and to address the sources of tension between the two main parts of the community. All of us who are familiar with Northern Ireland know that, in many of their daily activities, people from different parts of the community live, work and play happily side by side. I agree with those who say that, in Northern Ireland, diversity can and should be a source of strength and not weakness.
In this context, I should like to pay a warm and unreserved tribute to the people of Northern Ireland from this Dispatch Box. They have, for the past 20 years, had to withstand the most vicious terrorist campaigns waged by extremists on both sides of the community. Throughout that time, they have remained firm and resolute in their determination that those who use violence shall not have their way; their courage is a signal to us all. It is, moreover, a direct message to the terrorists themselves: the community has rejected and stood firm against them. After more than 20 years, the terrorists are absolutely no nearer to achieving their objectives.
There can be no doubt that, for their part, the Government will continue to resist the actions of the terrorists. Those who perpetrate the sort of attacks which occured in Belfast and Lurgan last night, and in County Armagh yesterday have nothing to offer. Their aim is to get us to set aside our democratic principles and for themselves to dictate the future of the Northern Ireland people. Quite simply, that is not going to happen. It is a fundamental duty of Government to ensure that their citizens' lives are protected, and that their rights to liberty and security are safeguarded.
To this end, we pursue a security policy which is robust, flexible, and based firmly on the fundamental principles which underlie any civilised society—respect for the rule of law and for the rights of individuals. Our policy is intended to bring a permanent end to terrorism. That is our first priority: to end violence and create the conditions in which a just, peaceful and prosperous society can develop.
In keeping with that policy, the Government have not hesitated to ask Parliament to enact, and renew, legislation which is essential if the security forces are to have the powers they need to deal firmly and effectively with the threats posed by organised terrorism and to tackle the menace and the weapon of terrorist racketeering. Nor have the Government hesitated to provide material support to the security forces. Recent additions to the strength of the

Royal Ulster Constabulary and the deployment of many additional soldiers are tangible examples of the Government's commitment.
The security forces, in turn, work with unparalleled determination, bravery and professionalism to apprehend terrorists, to deter their attacks, and to bring criminals to justice, before the courts. I pay tribute today to the men and women of the police service and the armed forces, and to the important role played by the judiciary, courts and prison staff. The security forces have considerable successes—which are all too easily forgotten, or never even noticed.
For example, who remarks on the vigilance which led to the discovery of a bomb, similar to that which caused the tragedy at Teebane, behind a hedge near Strabane a few days later? What lives and livelihoods have been saved by the large finds of terrorist munitions in Belfast in January and by the discovery of a 300 lb bomb at Forkhill in February?
All this is evidence of the relentless pursuit of terrorists, cross the whole of Northern Ireland. That work goes on, tirelessly and unceasingly. It must and will be conducted impartially, professionally and with respect for the important safeguards which exist in the legislation for the rights of individuals. The Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding are determined to achieve the highest standards and to encourage the confidence of the entire community in their respective forces; and to stand between the community and the gunmen until terrorism has been finally ended.
I referred in my earlier remarks to the fact that Northern Ireland is a divided society. I said that the most fundamental structural issue facing any Government was how to close the community divisions. Those divisions have, to an extent, been reflected in economic and social disparities. Members from both sides of the community have felt that their political interests have been overridden in the past. The nature of the divisions raises the issues of constitutional status and personal and national identity.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, at Question Time last Thursday, a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), said that the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic had sought to bring on to the agenda the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which goes to the heart of the status of Northern Ireland, about which the right hon. Gentleman is speaking? I do not know whether today the Secretary of State wishes to deal with the issue, perhaps fleetingly, but his remarks were considered by many in Northern Ireland of the Unionist tradition to have been almost deliberately obtuse. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the agenda will not be changing, that the backcloth that he painted for talks on the Northern Ireland situation still have Northern Ireland fully within the United Kingdom and that its place in the Union is not to be jeopardised?

Mr. Brooke: I made it clear in my answer to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that my statement to the House on 26 March 1991 was the basis for the talks, and the hon. Gentleman will recall the reference to the place of the United Kingdom which I made not only on that occasion but on the previous occasion on 5 July 1990. I confirm that.
References to the Government of Ireland Act have been made in connection with articles 2 and 3. The two measures are of a different order, in the sense that the Government of Ireland Act reflects the legal reality that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, whereas articles 2 and 3 are in the nature of a territorial claim. The present status of Northern Ireland is underpinned by article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As on previous occasions, I welcomed the Taoiseach's confirmation that articles 2 and 3 would be on the table.
As I was saying, I referred in my earlier remarks to the fact that Northern Ireland was a divided society. The nature of the divisions raises the issues of constitutional status, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred, and personal and national identity, giving the problem an international as well as a domestic character. The communal divisions on those fundamental issues have, tragically, found some expression in terrorism.
At the heart of all those issues lies the need to tackle Northern Ireland's political problems. The requirement is to address the constitutional, economic and social grievances which perpetuate divisions and allow room for terrorism. At present, locally accountable and democratic institutions of government are almost entirely absent. As the House will know, the Government's objective is to seek to transfer greater political power and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland on a widely acceptable basis. If there is to be genuine reconciliation, different shades of constitutional political opinion must be accommodated in the political process.

Mr. Bill Walker: I do not think that any of my hon. Friends would disagree with anything that my right hon. Friend has said. Even so, does he constantly bear in mind the fact that there are constitutional issues and problems north of the border, in Scotland, which are as deep-rooted and long-lasting and which could become as nasty if the Government did not bear that in mind when contemplating changes to the constitution for any part of the United Kingdom? All parts must be taken into account.

Mr. Brooke: I am glad, in response to my hon. Friend, to say that the Government are aware of the issues he raises, and they have recently been addressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to what my hon. Friend has said.
The Government have also taken the view that no political accommodation in relation to Northern Ireland could be stable and durable if it addressed only internal arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. That is why, with the support of our partners in dialogue, including the Irish Government, we have sought to construct a basis for political talks which could address, as part of the same process, relationships within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions there and the Westminster Parliament; relationships among the people of the island of Ireland; and relationships between the two Governments.
Any such process was always bound to be difficult to establish. However, it has the enormous advantage that it

can address all the relevant dimensions of the political problems of Northern Ireland, and I believe the various advantages of that have been widely recognised.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is there any reason why the Government should not set up an inquiry into the structure of local government in the Province without recourse to the Anglo-Irish Agreement or to consultation with Dublin? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local government structure is at present very deficient and has been deficient for many years? Does he agree that that would be at least one political step forward that we could take in the meantime, while we are awaiting a general election or the start of the talks?

Mr. Brooke: I shall come to the possibilities of talks starting afresh in the near future. I have, in previous exchanges with my hon. Friend, said that I thought that the issue of local government was likely to come up in the context of such talks.
In short, as the party leaders acknowledged when I met them on 27 January, the talks process launched last March has considerable potential. It provides a realistic route towards a comprehensive political accommodation which could be of benefit to everyone, except the gunmen. All the constitutional political parties involved have something to gain from the talks process and the people of Northern Ireland have the most to gain.
I will not rehearse the history of the political talks. I should however, like to pay tribute to the Northern Ireland parties for their willingness to develop the political dialogue, not just over the past two years, but in the period immediately preceding my tenure of office, when my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence was Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has facilitated the process throughout.
When the talks ended last July, I said that, in my view, they had laid a firm foundation for the future. Since then, I have had further discussions with the party leaders and the Irish Government to see whether we could agree a return to the negotiating table. When it appeared, a few weeks ago, that that was unlikely, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited the party leaders to discuss the issues with him. As a result of that meeting, they agreed to see whether a way round the obstacles could be found.
I am sure that the whole House will have been heartened by their statement last Friday that, subject to receiving written confirmation of the positions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, they could see no obstacle to the resumption of talks as soon as possible. I understand that the necessary assurances have now been given. I shall be discussing this with the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Andrews, tomorrow, in the expectation that substantive talks will begin very soon.
It is not always recognised that elected representatives of the two parts of the community in Northern Ireland work together and amicably, both in this House and in the European Parliament, on a wide range of issues affecting all the people of the Province. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence and I have recently benefited from a discussion of security issues with the four party leaders, and I have this week had a further productive meeting with them to discuss employment creation.
I believe that the formula that we have agreed between us provides a sound basis for tackling the issues. It ensures


that all the relevant relationships are taken into account; that any party can raise any matter which it considers relevant. including constitutional issues; that nothing can be agreed in any one strand until there is agreement on all three strands as a whole; that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of its people; and that a new and more broadly based agreement or structure could emerge from the negotiations.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Many hon. Members welcomed the statement made in Scotland last week by the Prime Minister in which he said that he would defend and support the Union between Scotland and England. On the subject of the Union, may I ask the Secretary of State to say that he will defend and support the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: My position in the context of the Union is well known to the House. I think that the Prime Minister made it clear when speaking in Scotland that it was in the context of Scotland that he was making his remarks.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman should be correct. I listened to the Prime Minister and he mentioned the Union between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That needs to be emphasised tonight.

Mr. Brooke: I took the precaution of reading my right hon. Friend's speech in detail—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with it?

Mr. Brooke: I always agree with my right hon. Friend. In terms of the substance of the speech and the issues he was addressing, he was essentially addressing the Scottish issue in what he said.

Sir John Farr: rose⤔

Mr. Brooke: Because this is a short debate, I must make progress. I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I must be careful of the interests of other hon. Members.

Sir John Farr: As our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a forthright message the other day in Scotland about the Union and the importance of voting for Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend say something to the 11 or 12 Conservative candidates who will stand in Northern Ireland at the next election?

Mr. Brooke: This debate is ranging more widely than I had expected when I described it, at the beginning of the debate, as "wide-ranging". I assure my hon. Friend that we all look forward to the first running of Conservative candidates in the Province for many years. They will give all their opponents a good run for their money. Many of us look forward to meeting hon. Members who are present in the House tonight in the context of the hustings that may be with us shortly.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: rose—

Mr. Brooke: It would be churlish not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but, after that, I must get on with my speech.

Mr. Mallon: Is there some reason why a Conservative candidate is not running in the constituency that includes South Armagh? We feel utterly deprived of such influence.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) knows that my ancestor represented Armagh and that the ancestor of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), represented Newry. During our time in the Northern Ireland Office, our interest in the seat has been for the welfare of their spiritual descendant, with whom we would not personally wish to interfere.
The past few years have seen the development of a close relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. That has centred around our joint experience of operating the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to which the Government remain fully committed. The relationship has brought benefits to both countries in terms of economic and social development, co-operation in the fight against terrorism, and commitment to political progress in Northern Ireland. I am confident that the constructive relationship can be further strengthened in the months ahead.
I shall not seek to predict the nature of any new agreement that might evolve from future talks, but I believe that the pursuit of that agreement will be substantially assisted by our close relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I commend the Irish Government's constructive interest in the talks process and regard as helpful the Taoiseach's recent confirmation that, so far as their own involvement in new talks is concerned, everything will be on the table for discussion, including articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.
Security co-operation is a vital component in the Anglo-Irish relationship. The threat posed by terrorism is never predictable and we must continuously review and refine cross-border co-operation to keep on top of that threat. But terrorism must never be allowed to dictate the agenda. There is important work to be done in developing the social and economic structure of Northern Ireland. Here too, close relations with the Republic of Ireland are valuable. That is not something Governments can achieve alone. It is also for individual companies and private organisations to recognise the benefits that can be brought about by closer co-operation and to take the necessary steps to bring that about.
For their part, the Government are determined to continue strengthening the economy of Northern Ireland, tackling unemployment, targeting areas of social need and rooting out discrimination wherever it may occur. Such measures are doubly important. They help to redress greivances which, in the past, have helped to sustain terrorism in Northern Ireland; they also provide the basis for the prosperous and balanced society to which we all aspire.
This Conservative Government have a proud record of economic achievement in Northern Ireland. Few people who last went to the Province in 1979 would go back now and say that it has not been transformed for the better. Of course, Northern Ireland has not been immune from the worldwide recession, but it is a sign of economic confidence in Northern Ireland that—unlike the old pattern when recession always hit Northern Ireland hardest—Northern Ireland has weathered this one better than almost any other region of the United Kingdom.
Unemployment has risen by proportionately much less than the United Kingdom average and is still much lower than in the Republic of Ireland. Our economic development strategy is leading to the regeneration of many of Ulster's towns and cities. One only has to look at Belfast and the large amount of private investment that it has attracted to recognise that. The newly privatised Shorts, and Harland and Wolff, are being turned around from loss-making burdens on the taxpayer to thriving private enterprises trading successfully home and abroad.
They are in the process of being joined in the private sector by Northern Ireland Electricity, giving the people of Northern Ireland their first chance to have a real stake in that industry. Earlier today, I announced the sale of the four power stations. Not only does that represent the successful achievement of a major part of the Government's privatisation plans, but it is yet another significant vote of confidence in Northern Ireland and its economy.
Three leading international energy companies have made major investments in purchasing those stations. Each has wide experience in the energy industry and can be expected to introduce new technologies and make the electricity industry much more efficient and competitive.
It is particularly exciting for the people of Northern Ireland at long last to have the prospect of natural gas being brought to the Province. We have been seeking ways of diversifying our heavy dependence on oil, and the sale of Ballylumford has provided the opportunity to achieve that. In addition, it will lead to much cleaner emissions and open up the opportunity for more consumer choice. It would not have happened without privatisation.
The investment being made by employees and managers in Coolkeeragh is also an indication of the confidence being placed by local people in the local economy. I believe that they have made a good decision and I wish them well.
A major part of our industrial strategy is to invest in the Northern Ireland work force. In that context, equality of opportunity and equity of treatment are, of course, priorities for the Government. One of our major policy priorities in terms of public expenditure is our initiative for targeting social need.
I have set out the Government's approach across the whole range of challenges facing Northern Ireland—political, social and economic development, as well as security. For it is only in tackling all those issues that there is hope of bringing to that troubled part of our country lasting peace and prosperity. There are, I know, those who say that there can be no hope—that the problems are so intractable that no end to the conflict is possible. I continue to be sustained by the sure conviction that one day the violence will cease. That is, I know, the heartfelt wish of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It will remain among the highest priorities of this Government.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We are now moving into what appear to be the final days of this Parliament. We are all disappointed that the problems of division, campaigns of murder and destruction continue to afflict Northern Ireland and spill

over into the rest of the United Kingdom. We all hope that the next Parliament will see greater progress towards the peace that everyone yearns for.
This debate is therefore timely. It is an opportunity to take stock of the lessons of the past and to look towards the future.
I join the Secretary of State in saluting the people of Northern Ireland, and those concerned in the administration there, for their steadfastness in past years. All sections of the community are to be admired for their determination, so far as possible, to maintain the natural pattern of their lives. Perhaps the main lesson to be learned from the past 22 years comes from that determination—the futililty of violence.
It is clear that no paramilitary organisation will attain its objectives through violence. The IRA has only succeeded in increasing the determination of the people of Northern Ireland, this country and our neighbours in the Republic to work together for a peaceful settlement. It is isolated in a cul-de-sac of its own making. Similarly, loyalist paramilitaries have only succeeded in discrediting their own cause and revolting the communities that they claim to protect.
The lesson is clear and must be understood: no one can shoot or bomb his way to the conference table. No democratic state can allow terrorism to succeed. The only way to attain political objectives is through political means—argument and persuasion, not violence or coercion. Only when the gunmen of both communities come to understand those fundamental realities will they be in a position to offer anything constructive to the people whom they claim to defend.
The Opposition are firmly committed to an intelligent and accurately directed anti-terrorist policy. Anyone who believes otherwise, whether a Tory Prime Minister or a terrorist, is deluding himself. Whatever arguments may exist over the specific policies designed to defeat terrorism, there can be no division over the common objective. I am glad that the Prime Minister is present to hear that.
I do not intend to apologise about the existence of such policy disagreements; they are quite normal and legitimate in any democratic society. If terrorism ever caused us to lose our critical faculties, that would be a sad and bad day for democracy.
We believe in a security policy focused on the paramilitaries rather than one that treats entire communities as if they were guilty. The prime victims of the paramilitaries are the communities on which they inflict themselves. They inflict terrible cost on the people whom they claim to protect. It is not sensible to categorise such communities as hostile and drive them into the arms of their self-proclaimed defenders.
The paramilitaries must be actively pursued, charged, tried and put behind bars. The rights of the citizens must be protected, in particular, the right to freedom from the fear of death and mutilation, and the right to be protected from arbitrary encroachments by the servants of the state.
There is sometimes a tendency to set freedom and order in conflict with each other. That is a mistake; the two are inseparable. While we must take every reasonable measure to overcome terrorism, we must also keep clearly in our minds the need to preserve civil liberties. Violations of civil liberties provoke grievances and enhance the credibility of the paramilitaries, thus bringing about precisely the sort of situation that must be avoided. Nothing is more damaging to the terrorist cause than the state demonstrating itself to


be the real defender of human rights. Ultimately, of course, however successful the operations of the various police, Army and intelligence agencies may be, on both sides of the border and on the island of Britain, terrorism will be eliminated only when its underlying causes are addressed.
The need to put in place political arrangements that can command the consent and respect of the vast majority of citizens in Northern Ireland is urgent and pressing. Only then can Northern Ireland hope to approximate to a normal western European society.

Mr. David Winnick: I endorse all that my hon. Friend says about combating terrorism. Although the Provisional IRA—one set of terrorists who have operated for the past 20 years—claim to speak on behalf of the Irish people, when they stood in elections in the Irish Republic they received less than 2 per cent. of the vote. That is hardly a mandate and, even in Northern Ireland, their supporters remain a minority within the nationalist community.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, not only is it necessary to preserve civil liberties in combating terrorism—which we must certainly do to protect people's lives—but it is important to retain international support in Europe, the United States and the Republic of Ireland? What the terrorists want, above all else, is for us to act in such a way that they gain political ammunition and support in order to further their evil cause.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend's comments are wise. The argument that he advances is one of the primary reasons for not, as has been suggested, introducing internment without trial.
I was talking of the need for political arrangements that command the consent and respect of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. That is the task in which successive British and Irish Governments, and the political parties in Northern Ireland, have so signally failed—although, God knows, they have tried frequently enough. However, that is not an excuse to give up trying or to adopt a policy of mere containment; it must be for us, as democratic representatives, an incentive to redouble our efforts to negotiate.
The Secretary of State has, with the support of the Opposition, been working towards that goal. I am sure that he is disappointed that he has not made more progress, but I think that he can take some comfort from the fact that the two Governments and the Northern Ireland parties appear to be closer to the conference table than at any time since the mid-1970s.
The Opposition welcome the forthcoming meeting between the party leaders and the Secretary of State. We hope very much that it will lead to further substantive talks, and that strands two and three will be opened at the earliest possible date.
It would be unforgivable if the limited agreements which have been made so far were thrown away. The people of Northern Ireland, of the Republic and of Britain expect their Governments and their political representatives to make determined efforts to negotiate a settlement acceptable to all. The present opportunity should not be lightly cast aside.
Strictly speaking, the Opposition are not a party to the talks. Nevertheless, the political situation and the latest opinion polls mean that there is a legitimate expectation

that the Opposition should make clear what their intentions would be in the event of their forming a Government.
For the Opposition, the Secretary of State's statement of 26 March 1991 provides the essential framework for talks in which all aspects of the relationship between the two major communities in Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between Britain and Ireland can be discussed.
The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that, if talks are still continuing when the election is called, a Labour Government will reconvene the talks on exactly the same basis as they had been taking place before the election. We will honour any agreements on the talks made before the election between the parties and the existing Governments, and will expect the other participants to do the same.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I think that the issue of which the hon. Gentleman is talking is important in the context of Northern Ireland discussions. To clear up any misunderstanding, can he confirm that he fully supports the leader of the Labour party, who said, as quoted in The Irish Times last week, that, if the talks were reconvened, Irish unity would not be the objective of the Labour party at those talks?

Mr. McNamara: I have said that our aim will be on precisely the same basis as the talks being undertaken at present—on precisely the same three strands. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until later in my speech, when he might receive further information on that issue.
It would be an insult to the intelligence of the participants in the talks if we were to pretend not to have our own views on the future of Northern Ireland. Those views are a matter of record, as are those of both Unionist parties, the Alliance party, the SDLP and Her Majesty's Government.
We believe that the long-term future of Northern Ireland lies in unity with the rest of the island. At the same time, we recognise that change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland would, and could, occur only with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we support the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and article 1 of it.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear last week the role that a Labour Government would play in the conduct of negotiations. A Labour Secretary of State would not be there to impose his own agenda upon the talks; he would be there to play a positive role in facilitating and promoting agreement between the participants. Since a Labour Secretary of State would be looking for agreement, by definition there would be no question of imposition of any kind, and, in the words of the Secretary of State in his statement to the House of 26 March 1991, which he repeated today:
It is accepted by all the parties that nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole".—[Official Report, 26 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 766.]
The Labour party's concern is to establish effective political arrangements which place the three relationships to be dealt with in the three strands of the talks on a new, forward-looking and successful footing. We will use our best endeavours to bring the talks to a successful conclusion, for we shall not be found wanting in our determination to overcome obstacles.
While talks are continuing, the responsibilities of government will not go away. In particular, the economic and social deprivation of the Province must be tackled. Progress towards the single market also makes urgent the need to prepare the economy of Northern Ireland for the new environment. There is no time to spare. Northern Ireland is already on the geographical margin of the European Community; we must ensure that it is not relegated to the economic margins.
The hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) deserves some credit for his efforts to carry on a more realistic industrial strategy than that carried out by his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I trust that he did that without their knowing what he was up to. I hope that he will not take this personally, but he has been restricted by the requirements to conduct his economic policy on a sort of need-to-know basis—for Northern Ireland eyes only. It is an industrial policy that dare not speak its name. I will say no more, as I do not want to embarrass him while he is sitting so close to the Prime Minister.
I have one outstanding objection to what the Secretary of State said this evening. He claimed certain benefits from selling off Northern Ireland Electricity to various private interests. I cannot but think that he is pillaging Northern Ireland electricity consumers to cut income tax in Britain before the election. Given how lacking in investment Northern Ireland's economy is, selling off one of its prize assets to try to bribe the Government's way back into government presents a most unhappy epitaph for what has been a rather distinguished career in Northern Ireland industry for the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North.

Mr. Brooke: I recall that the Labour party opposed the privatisations that we effected both at Shorts and at Harland and Wolff. No observer in Northern Ireland would deny that both companies are significantly stronger and that one of them has much higher employment as a result of privatisation.

Mr. McNamara: I hope that, at the end of next year, we will be able to say that all the Northern Ireland electricity companies are employing exactly the same number of people—or, indeed, that they will be employing more of them. If that happens, it will contradict experience in this country, where, under the privatised electricity companies, prices have risen enormously. Only today I had a letter from an industrialist in my constituency telling me that electricity prices for his factory are to rise by 16 per cent.—under Yorkshire Electricity. If that happens in Northern Ireland, the fruits of privatisation will prove to have gone bad.
The Labour party, on the other hand, is prepared to proclaim its policies from the roof tops. We will invest, modernise and train, and insist that goods are exported in the knowledge that there will be whole-hearted commitment on the part of the Government to furthering the interests of industry in Northern Ireland. Industry is not a dirty word to us: it is a basis for a sound economy—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wiltshire, North should not sit there chittering away. I have paid him a compliment this evening—although it may cost him his job. It would be churlish not to acknowledge how much industry the hon. Gentleman has brought to Northern

Ireland, but the tragedy is that so much of it is service industry. What we really need are productive industries for the service industries to service.
We are also convinced that it is now time to act on the wasted oportunities for cross-border trade and cooperation—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Jobs is jobs.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency in the south-east of England, should tell that to all the service industry employees in his constituency who are losing their jobs, which in turn will result in his losing his seat.

Mr. Mallon: Before we all become too bland in the interests of harmony, is it not a fact that, if we are to find a solution to this problem, there are hard decisions to be made which can be made only by the British and Irish Governments? There is no way around that. It is nice to know that we are good at indoor sport and that everything will improve on the socioeconomic front, but it would be a shame if we left this debate without the people listening to it here and at home hearing some response from both sides to how the Governments will deal with those fundamental problems. It is not enough to get the Northern Irish parties to participate in consultations; they can go only so far. It is only the Irish and British Governments who have the power and authority to make the fundamental decisions, and we should like to hear a little more about that.

Mr. McNamara: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend means the political sphere or the trade and industry sphere. If the former, I thought that it was covered in the agreement made in March. That is the third strand of the talks—and the second, under which the Government of the Republic will sit down with the parties from Northern Ireland. If my hon. Friend is talking about questions of trade between the two parts of Ireland, and the roles of the parties in that, he anticipates my next paragraph.
The Labour party is convinced that it is time to act on the wasted opportunities for cross-border trade and co-operation. It is increasingly recognised that levels of trade between the north and the Republic are scandalously low. It is not just a question of wasted opportunities: this failure means a real loss of jobs and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland.
If the two parts of Ireland do not take the opportunities, other EC states will. If the Republic does not exploit markets in Northern Ireland, the Germans or the Dutch will. If Northern Ireland does not exploit the market on its southern doorstep, the French and Italians will; if we have a Labour Government and more efficient industry, even Britain will. We live in a much more open and competitive world than before, and we can no longer barricade ourselves behind our prejudices and our fears.
We also believe that it is time for an end to the Euro-begrudgery that has hindered Northern Ireland's prospects in the European Community. The Government must take the lead in exploiting the potential of the Community. An active approach is necessary to ensure that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of EC expenditure.
We must encourage the public and private sectors to look outwards and to get to grips with the reality of life in the Community. The Northern Ireland centre in Brussels


is badly needed; it is a highly welcome initiative which deserves the full backing of all parties in Northern Ireland and in this House.
This debate takes place at crucial moment for the future of Northern Ireland. There is now a chance of escaping from the fratricidal conflict of the past quarter of a century. There have been too many disappointments for us to be entirely confident about the future or about the developments that we want. Nevertheless, whatever pessimism of our intelligence exists, all democrats must reaffirm the optimism of the will to succeed. As democratic politicians, we must be optimistic.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the fratricidal conflict of the past 25 years. It is not new in the history of Ireland, however. That history presents a sickening catalogue of horrific atrocities. Long before Northern Ireland was created, long before the Dublin Parliament was dissolved and we had a united Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, long before the Tudors ever came to Ireland, and long before the Normans, century after century witnessed innocent blood shed and anguished tears. All this can be seen on every page of the history of Ireland: it is not new.
Sad to say, evil men can look back at history and justify their evil deeds by what their forebears did. Every country in the world has had dark deeds of which it is rightly ashamed, but there is something particularly gruesome about the furtive assassins who have stalked—usually in the dark—the towns and fields of Ireland; and they usually shoot in the back or plant a bomb and detonate it from a safe distance. Their accursed successors carry on this trade of death, mutilation and destruction. My cousin, an innocent woman and devoted wife and mother, was murdered by the Provisional IRA because she shared my name.
Like all my Unionist colleagues from Northern Ireland, I have received death threats from the IRA. The accusation against us is that we are Brits and should be put out of Ireland. My forebears tilled the land in Ireland from the mists of time, but no doubt Mr. Gerry Adams is a newcomer, a descendant of some English settler or perhaps a British soldier who came to Dublin. Republican terrorists bring shame to the cause they espouse, and they will be condemned in the years to come.
I was deeply emotionally touched when I heard a message sent by the widow of one of the Protestant workmen killed with seven of his Protestant colleagues outside Cookstown on 17 January in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Within days, in an act of so-called retaliation, Roman Catholics were slaughtered in Belfast. The Protestant widow, in the midst of her own overwhelming grief, sent a message of sympathy to a newly widowed Catholic. The terrible atrocities catch the headlines throughout the world, to the great delight of the IRA because, of course, all terrorists live on publicity. I hold deep in my heart and mind that simple poignant message of Christian kindness from that Protestant woman to a Catholic woman. We have seen many similar acts, and they certainly stand out against the darkness of the campaign of terror.
It is time for the people of Ulster to realise what they are facing and to release themselves from the bondage that terrorism has created. People should not be duped into hating each other for the love of God. From the bottom of my heart, I appeal to those who are governed by prejudice and hatred to open their minds to truth and love. For 20 years, I have been arguing in the House against religious apartheid in education, because I believe that, if people in Northern Ireland communicated more, Protestants and Catholics would see that the others are not the ogres that they are made out to be by the terrorists who pretend to represent them.
The good people whom I have the honour to represent in the House—men and women, mothers and fathers, business men and workers on the factory floor—all believe, as I fervently believe, that there is richness in diversity. Therefore, let us all shun the terrorists and actively support the forces of law and order so that peace triumphs at last.
One may say, as I have said and as I have heard said at the Dispatch Box, that good will one day triumph over evil, but it needs a helping hand. The only way to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland is to ensure that the security forces have the full and unequivocal support of every law-abiding person in Northern Ireland.
I ask the Dublin Government to abandon their claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, a claim which legitimises the Provisional IRA campaign of terror. The constitutional politicians ought to work in partnership to resolve the problems that trouble the Province. For instance, there is a need for jobs for the unemployed and especially for school leavers and university students. There is a need to protect and provide for the elderly, who form the most vulnerable section of our community. We need to ensure better hospital and social services, to provide more homes, improve existing homes and protect Northern Ireland's environment. Above all, there is a need to improve the quality of life for all, regardless of religion or politics.

Ms. Clare Short: I challenge the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution legitimise terrorism. On the contrary, a republican tradition that is entirely constitutional and opposes terrorism defies terrorists. No means of arguing that the partition of Ireland is unfortunate and that a united Ireland might be better for all its people other than by espousing terrorist organisations would strengthen such organisations. The hon. Gentleman's argument is quite wrong.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Lady says that I am wrong and I say that I am right. I shall leave it at that. I direct the hon. Lady to what has happened in Europe, where some countries claim the territory of another and where there are religious and racial disputes. If the Dublin Government abandoned their claim, it would cut the ground from under the feet of the Provisional IRA and would help to unite the people of Northern Ireland, which is what we need.
As the Speaker of the last Northern Ireland Assembly, I sought, as did most of those who participated in its proceedings, to make it a success. I sincerely desired to make the Stormont Parliament building a symbol of a new, forward-looking, progressive Ulster, and I think that my hon. Friends who were in the Assembly will confirm that there was a good and friendly atmosphere. I pay


tribute to all those who worked in the Assembly. It showed that co-operation is possible and can be productive; we had some excellent reports from the scrutiny committees. If the Assembly had not been scuttled, it would have progressed to create political stability in the Province.

Mr. Mallon: This is an important debate, and people in the north of Ireland are looking crucially at it. What is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's party's policy that he would recommend to the House as a means of solving the problems that face us?

Mr. Kilfedder: I have been excluded from the talks. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hear my contribution, he should ensure that I participate in them. For years I have urged talks and I believe that if the SDLP had gone into the Assembly we would have made political progress. But it is no use looking to the past. I do not want to rake over the past, because we could spend hours, days, weeks or months arguing about it and accusing each other. We have to look to the future, and I think that the people of Northern Ireland, expect us to do that.
I pray that the talks will lead to political progress in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his initiative. He attended at the beginning of this debate and people in Northern Ireland will realise that he made a point of being here for the opening speeches. He is certainly a caring person who is acutely and extremely compassionate.
The fact that there is a Conservative candidate in North Down does not alter my views about the Prime Minister. To be frank, the Conservative candidate does not espouse Conservative policies. He attacks the talks and accuses the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of encouraging the IRA to kill people in Northern Ireland by holding the talks. I think that only one other organisation supports the Conservative candidate on that line, and that is the Provisional IRA.
I do not mind what political arrangement is arrived at as a result of the talks, whether it is devolution or executive, administrative or total integration, as long as we have political stability, which will provide a happy and prosperous future for the next generation and for generations yet unborn.

8 pm

Mr. John Hume: Like everyone else, I welcome the debate. It gives us the opportunity to discuss in depth the serious problems that we face. It is the first time in the life of this Parliament that we have had such a debate.
In this context, over 3,000 people have lost their lives in Northern Ireland, and the population is 1·5 million. Three thousand is the equivalent of 100,000 on this island. I do not think that I exaggerate if I say that, if 100,000 had lost their lives in Scotland, England and Wales in community violence, the subject would have been debated every day by a packed House. I could draw my own conclusions from the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland has not been debated in the House in that way, and the fact that, when it is, only a few are in the Chamber to talk about it. I shall not draw those conclusions, because they are extremely political and some people might not want to agree with them, even though they should think about them.
As I have said, 3,000 have lost their lives and about 20,000 have been maimed. One of the worst things that has happened—it is one of the greatest indictments of us all, and I include everyone who is involved in the problem—is that in Belfast, which is the most churchgoing city in western Europe—that includes those on both sides of the religious divide—it has been necessary to build not one wall but 13 to protect one section of a Christian people from another and to separate them from one another. That is where I want to begin.
The reason for indictment is simple: our attitudes, and especially our past attitudes, have built them. If we are serious about trying to solve the problem, as opposed to playing party politics, and throwing out the outdated slogans of the past—those slogans formed part of the attitudes that built our walls—we must all commit ourselves in this debate to speaking for the people of Northern Ireland when we get to the negotiating table. We must be prepared at the talks to re-examine our basic attitudes to the problems. It is those attitudes that have brought us to where we are. That is the challenge that we face in the talks.
As I have said, I welcome the talks. I welcome the fact that, for the first time during the existence of the problem, all aspects of it will be on the table for discussion, with all the relationships that are involved. We shall be talking about our relationships within Northern Ireland and relationships between North and South and Britain and Ireland.
I recognise that, in agreeing with strand 2, the Unionist political leadership is saying that it is willing to take seriously the arguments that is advanced by some of us that that it is a central factor in dealing with a solution to the problem. I do not underestimate the fact that that shows political leadership. The Unionist leadership is willing to discuss north-south relationships with the Dublin Government. That is, in a sense, in keeping with its tradition. Craigavon talked regularly to the people in Dublin in attempts to reach agreements with them. In 1938, shortly after the 1937 constitution was passed, one of Craigavon's great quotes was:
We cannot forever live apart.
In today's world, no group of people can live apart.
It is obvious that the relationship between Unionist people and the rest of the island is central to the problem we face. I say that because, in 1912, when the House voted democratically for home rule for Ireland, the Unionist people felt that they could not live with it. That reflected their relationship with the rest of the island. When the Stormont Parliament was set up, the Unionist Government excluded the nationalist population, by and large, from any say in how the place was run. They did so for the same reason: fear of links with the rest of the island. They opposed the Sunningdale agreement for the same reason: they feared assimilation with the rest of the island. That is why they have opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I may be reading the Unionists incorrectly, but that is my perception of Unionism. I would welcome being told where I am wrong when we get round the table. I hope and believe that our dialogue will be deadly serious.
Until that relationship is sorted out, nothing will work. When I say "sorted out", I mean to the satisfaction of Unionist people as well as to the satisfaction of the rest of the people of the island. That is why we propose that, before there are talks with the Dublin Government on how we shall live together on the island, an agreement should


be reached that any agreement should be endorsed on the one day by means of a referendum within each part of the island.
That reassures the Unionist people that, when we say "agreement", we mean it. That undermines the extremists who use guns, because, for the first time ever, the people of Ireland as a whole will have spoken. That will be the basis for lasting peace.
The walls that I mentioned are a challenge to us to rethink past attitudes, and I shall address Unionist Members on what I regard as theirs. I shall refer also to what I regard as our past attitudes. Unionist people have always stated that their objectives in Ireland are to protect, maintain and develop their own identity and their differences, and I do not quarrel with that. I would strongly support their aim to protect differences, because every society is richer for that. I quarrel not with their political objectives but with their traditional methods of protecting their identity. As we see it from our side of the community, the Unionist people have always decided to protect their own identity by holding all power in their own hands and excluding other people. They can trust only themselves.
If we analyse areas of conflict in other parts of the world—not only in Northern Ireland but in the middle east and South Africa, for example—we find that mentality. In effect, it is we, ourselves, alone. That approach obviously excludes others. In the end such a mentality is bound to lead to conflict.
There is another way. Again, it is simple and straightforward. Our experience of history—and the Unionist people's experience—should teach Unionists that their real strength and, at the end of the day, their only strength lies in their own numbers and their own people. They must stand on their own feet, and negotiate their own relationships and agreements with those with whom they share a piece of earth.
I believe that the Unionist mentality—the belief that they can trust only themselves—reflects their fear that the rest of the island wishes to subsume them, or indeed to wipe them out: that feeling is, of course, reinforced by the IRA campaign. Let me quote what should be a Unionist slogan from John Hewitt, the well-known Northern Irish poet, which expresses the deep anxiety felt by the Unionist people. He said:
This is our country also—nowhere else—and we shall not be outcasts in the world.
I agree with that. I think that the objective of my side of the community should be to reassure the Unionist people that, whatever approach is adopted to a solution of the problems, we have not the slightest interest in making them outcasts.
The Unionists should think about that as well, however. In many parts of the world, their image has become very negative: most people know what they are against, but not too many know what they are for. That is not in keeping with the strength of the Unionist tradition. The development of a siege mentality tends to dry up the creative roots.
Let us consider the history of the Protestant tradition in Ireland. The Protestants contributed 11 presidents to the United States of America, which surely demonstrates the creativity of their tradition. The United States constitution was drafted by Irish presbyterians who had been driven out of Ireland by intolerance.

Mr. Trimble: Ulster presbyterians.

Mr. Hume: Ulster presbyterians, yes. They had been driven out of Ireland by an intolerance that their Catholic neighbours also faced at the time: it was the establishment—the ascendancy—that was intolerant. When they went to their new land, they decided that they would not repeat the experience that they had left behind.
The American declaration of independence was printed by John Dunlop, a presbyterian from Strabane; the first Secretary of the American Congress was a presbyterian from Maghera. Those people recognised that the answer to the problem of difference was not to wipe it out: they knew that difference was not a threat, but an enriching thing, and that the essence of unity and stability for any society, anywhere in the world, was the acceptance of diversity. They knew that it was wrong to treat those with whom we differ as a threat.
On the cheapest coin in America—the cent—can be found the message of the people's wisdom, written by Ulster presbyterians—"E pluribus unum". I invite their present-day successors, and members of the same tradition, to take a good hard look at their philosophy, and to apply it to the problem that we face in today's Ireland. "E pluribus unum"—from many we are one. The essence of our unity as a people depends on acceptance of, and respect for, our diversity.
The nationalist tradition must also do some rethinking. We have had handed down to us the traditional view that Irish unity is ours of right, because the majority of people on the island want it. That position is based on a territorial view of nationalism; but I believe that a piece of earth without people, in Ireland or anywhere else, is no more than a jungle. It is people who matter. My party has said consistently that, when we talk of unity, we are talking about people. On the island of Ireland, we have a divided people. We shall not unite those people by force or by violence; we can unite them only by agreement.
The territorial view of unity is based on the notion of assimilation or coercion rather than agreement. That traditional view of unity has been reinforced by the IRA campaign. This week, I issued a challenge to the IRA in the form of a public statement. I said, "Let us leave aside the moral aspect of what you are doing—killing human beings for political purposes—because those are clear. Let us consider your campaign from a purely military point of view. Three thousand people have died. Of those 3,000, 435 were British soldiers; the rest were the people of Northern Ireland—civilians, and members of the RUC and the UDR. Seventeen hundred were innocent civilians." Of those 3,000, 239 were IRA members, and 144 were killed by the IRA—in accidents or executions.
My question to the IRA is very straightforward. Leaving morals aside, how does it justify a military campaign whose victims are its own people? Ninety per cent. of the victims of the loyalist and Provo campaigns in Northern Ireland are the people of Northern Ireland.
I do not refer only to those that have been sent to their graves—another innocent man was sent to his grave yesterday. The current campaign has put on to our streets armed troops composed mostly of working-class people from British cities who do not understand our problem. They are searching young people on a regular basis, and that causes community tensions. The troops would not be there if it were not for the IRA campaign. If the IRA wants them off our streets, the simple answer is to stop the


campaign. Moreover, the image that has been created is preventing inward investment, which means that we cannot employ our young people.
Surely there is no military justification—as I have said, I am leaving aside the moral aspect—for a campaign whose victims are our own people, on every front. As I did earlier this week, I invite the IRA to look at its founding fathers. In the GPO in 1916, Pearse and Connolly sent a message to their followers: "Lay down your arms, lest you bring too much suffering on your own people." In asking IRA members to lay down their arms, I am asking them to follow the lead of some respected members of the republican tradition.
As for the loyalist paramilitaries—85 of whom have died—they tell us that their reason is revenge. Revenge is not the solution; in a divided society, the doctrine of "an eye for an eye" leaves everyone blind.
As I have said, we must re-examine our past attitudes, but where do we go from there? Our problems in Northern Ireland are not unique in European or world history. Most countries have backgrounds of historic national conflict, tension with neighbouring states, or internal differences of language, religion or national identity. The lesson learned by such countries has been that difference itself need not be a problem. The issue for those seeking stability and harmony in those countries was not the elimination of difference and diversity, but their accommodation. They learned that there was no peace, no stability and no security in seeking political arrangements which reflected and respected only one tradition and one set of values. Instead, stability, and the best protection for any tradition, lay in creating political consensus, with structures which neither privileged nor prejudiced the position of any tradition. That is the message for all of us in Northern Ireland.
That message is strengthened by the fact that today the people of Northern Ireland are part of a European Community that has agreed to move towards closer union. Most of the debates about the Community—we heard some today, in parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—are about money, economics and so forth. Little is said about the real reason why the united Europe was built, and the idealism that built it. However, Northern Ireland is not the only area of conflict that should study how that happened; every area of conflict in the world should study it.
Fifty years ago—or 47 years ago, to be correct—the nightmare that was intended to last a thousand years ended. The second world war ended. For the second time this century, millions of people had been slaughtered. People had been slaughtered throughout the previous centuries, too. At that time, if someone had got up and said, "In 50 years' time we shall have a united Europe—yet the Germans will still be German and the French will still be French," that person might have been locked up. But that goal was achieved. How? The answer is simple but profound. People said, "Difference is not a threat. The answer to difference is the accommodation of difference." They agreed to create institutions which respected diversity yet which allowed them to work their common ground, which was economic. In short, they agreed to spill their sweat together and not their blood.
By creating institutions that respected their diversity, and working their common ground, which was economic, they created circumstances in which by working together, they eroded their prejudices and differences and grew together at their own speed towards a new Europe, which will continue to evolve even after what was decided at Maastricht is put into practice.
The lesson for us in Ireland is the same. Let us build institutions in the north of Ireland which respect our differences, but which allow us to work our common ground, which is considerable. Let us, too, build institutions by agreement between both parts of our island—institutions which allow us to work our common ground and, by doing so, to break down the barriers of prejudice and distrust, the fruits of which—results, rather; I should not call them fruits—have been such tragedy in the past.
I have no doubt that, if we reach such agreements and vote for them, as I suggested earlier, by working together over the years, we shall erode our prejudices and grow together at our own speed, in two or three generations, into a new Ireland built on respect for diversity—an Ireland built by its people working together.
I do not think that it will be easy for us to reach such agreements in the current talks, but in the meantime, while we are doing so, let us get working on the common ground anyway, in order to break down the barriers of distrust between us. The common ground is obvious. We are one of the areas with the highest unemployment in the whole of the new European Community. Why do we not work together to tackle that, and, in doing so, turn our disadvantages into advantages?
All over the world, there are people who tell us that they are proud of their Irish heritage. The Irish, both of the north and of the south, are the biggest wandering people in the world—we are a bigger wandering people than the Jews. The most recent census in the United States showed that 42 million people declared themselves to be Irish. The same is true in Australia and Canada—and many of those people have made it in business, politics or whatever.
Why do we not use that card, as some of us have already done, making contacts with people in senior positions in the United States, and asking them to use their influence? We say, "Okay, so you want to help Ireland. A pint of Guinness on St. Patrick's day is all very well, but how about some real help, such as considering some investment?"
As we play the green card in such places as Boston, I believe that our Unionist friends could play the orange card in places such as Toronto. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) could use the links which his political and religious tradition has with the southern states of America. Let us get together and harness those energies in a positive rather than a negative sense, to bring development to our people. We are not asking people for charity, because we have something to offer. We are offering them a foothold in the biggest single market in the world, and we speak the same language.
While we are talking, and trying to build confidence and trust in our people, let us work the common ground together. Let us spill our sweat and not our blood. Let us at last give hope to our people. All of us who know the problem know that we will not solve it in a week or in a fortnight, but if the people see us engaged in strategies that lead in the right direction, they will stand behind us.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Out of courtesy to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I shall respond to some of the points that he not unreasonably made in his speech. However, I should like first to take a few minutes at the beginning of my speech to educate those who are in some danger of destroying their credibility by parroting cliches and buzz words which are so obviously inaccurate.
We have a mission in life to rescue those in what are commonly called the chattering classes, and some people in the news industry who seem to have lost the power to do their own thinking. Due to low intelligence or bone idleness, they have somehow or other become programmed, and they absorb the superficial ideas of others as shallow as themselves, so it is hardly surprising that the same catch phrases pour out, as if from a word-processor gone mad—catch phrases such as, "find a solution", "get into dialogue", and "sit round the table."
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who was here earlier, reminded us this week that the Northern Ireland party leaders, with all the many admitted faults, are rather better at such things than the party leaders in Great Britain. We heard confirmation of that at Prime Minister's Question Time today.
The chattering classes try to mislead honest folk by deliberate distortion of facts, not realising that they are engaged in an orgy of self-contradiction. Last autumn they asserted that the Secretary of State was wasting his time, because no progress could be made this side of a general election. That was five months ago, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember the identities of those who said such things. Being a charitable sort of character, I did my best to save them from their folly. At my party conference on 28 October 1991, I said:
I get impatient with soothsayers who predict that nothing will happen this side of the general election. I reject utterly such pessimistic chatter.
Now, five months later, those same people are blaming the three Northern Ireland parties in this House, and perhaps a fourth which, we hope, will survive the general election.

Mr. Kilfedder: Many thanks, Jim.

Mr. Molyneaux: They blame those parties for proving them wrong and, like the distinguished 19th-century figure who, on learning of the death of a rival, asked, "I wonder what he meant by that," modern opinion formers also have to grub around for motives for actions that have proved them wrong. It does not seem to occur to them that it might be possible that the three of us—or the three and a half of us—who lead the parties in this House have a degree of integrity which our critics lack. Truly, a sense of inferiority must be a terrible affliction.
Our motive is not a hidden agenda but one which, I know the Secretary of State will agree, was the encouragement given first by the Prime Minister, especially at the meeting in Downing street, and subsequently in other forms. We voluntarily undertook to engage in quiet, calm deliberations, and the result was agreement last Friday, achieved—as the hon. Members for Foyle and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will agree —in exactly 50 minutes. The second significant contribution came from the Leader of the Opposition, who, like the Prime Minister, underwrote the process and

readily gave an assurance that a Labour Government would honour any agreement for a framework designed before the general election.
The House will realise that our motive was simplicity and honesty itself. It was to improve co-operation and to seek and to strive, secure in the knowledge that the Prime Minister and the alternative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be joint guarantors of any practical agreement resulting from our deliberations.
I am by no means discounting the contribution of the Secretary of State or of the Minister of State during those patient endeavours. I know that they accept—as we do—that certain endeavours can be underpinned only by those who bear the ultimate responsibility in our nation. We intend that the meetings planned for next week will be real and businesslike. Responsible elements in the news industry—fortunately, they are in the majority—have a vested interest in our success. Their contribution will mean forgoing photo calls, chat shows and phone-ins of the type which provide opportunities for trading insults which can sometimes be as lethal as the armalite.
A further incentive to make full use of the time that remains is the fact that the constitutional affairs of the United Kingdom are in a state of flux, and that subject will not go away. In the new Parliament, decentralisation of powers will be the main debating point. The Northern Ireland parties in the House have considerable experience, and we believe that it would be very useful for the rest of the United Kingdom to have the benefit of our up-to-date thinking on that subject, perhaps in the form of an agreed blueprint or at least a paper setting out the pluses and minuses of given models. For that reason, we are keen to make all possible progress before the general election is called, when, as agreed, the inter-party talks will cease. However, that should not mean a halt to drafting activities by the participating party teams, some of whom will be thankful that they are not going to be front-liners in the election campaign.
We have a duty to warn against efforts designed to mislead the general public in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom into believing that we are engaging in peace talks. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State fully understand—and, I think, support—what I am saying. Today, inter-party tensions are lower and cross-party co-operation is better than at any time in the past 20 years, but yesterday, a lorry driver was murdered in County Armagh and today—as we have heard—the centre was torn out of the town of Lurgan in the same county which has suffered so much so often.
The brutal reality—we would be deceiving people and failing in our duty not to say this—is that, even if we prove to be 100 per cent. successful in our talks, the violence will remain undiminished. It would be equally dishonest to raise expectations too high, as I am afraid was the case last spring. The fact that we can engage in civilised dialogue does not mean that fundamental differences can be made to disappear overnight.
Sometimes talk of solutions can be divisive and usually irresponsible. I am not attributing those qualities to the contribution of the hon. Member for Foyle. He has—not unreasonably—sought confirmation of our attitudes. If I may say so, he is in some danger of thinking of Unionism in the narrow sense when he talked about our Unionist or Protestant identity which, he said, excludes all others.
The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, because his responsibility is to run his party, that when I became leader


of my party in 1979, I was determined to aim for the broad church concept. When he and I shared a platform almost a year ago addressing the 28 primates of the Anglican communion in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I explained my attitude. I said that I regarded it as my duty to provide positive leadership for what I called the greater number of Ulster people—Protestant and Roman Catholic alike—who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Foyle will remember that on that occasion, when I was asked why I used the term "the greater number" I explained that it was to avoid using the word "majority", which could be interpreted as the Unionist majority or the Protestant majority. In other words, I was going for the greater number of citizens who regard themselves and want to go on regarding themselves as citizens of the United Kingdom, who include what Father Faul called the 80 per cent. of Roman Catholics who would not vote for a united Ireland.
On another occasion, the hon. Member for Foyle may have thought that Father Faul's concept was perhaps a bit narrow. I think that possibly 25 per cent. of his fraternity might support a united Ireland by vote, but I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle can take some comfort from the fact that my party has grown in strength despite making it clear that we stood for Unionism in the broadest possible sense—membership of this bigger unit of the United Kingdom—and that we were a party open to all people regardless of their religious affiliations.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is comforted—I hope he is—by the fact that, for 12 years, I have been elected annually by the 800-strong Ulster Unionist council which was fully aware of the views that I have just expressed. With all our faults, we have not turned inward as ethnic groups in eastern Europe and even in mother Russia tend to be doing at the present time—a development which all hon. Members will deeply regret.
I inserted that section in my speech because I desperately wanted to avoid the failure that would result if we attempted to fight old battles or even entered into the real discussions with any misunderstanding between us.
We may patiently work out an accommodation which will enable us to live and work together within Northern Ireland and, we hope, find another accommodation providing for peaceful co-existence with our neighbouring nation south of the frontier. Both those accommodations would fit into what Mr. Haughey perceived to be
the totality of the relationships within these islands".
That phrase is endorsed by the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The pity of it is that that broad noble concept was torpedoed and recklessly damaged by the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, because it focused the entire energies of the two sovereign nations on six small counties in the entire British Isles. In the not too distant future, we must choose a much wider and more generous structure.
I end with a suggestion which may startle some people. I suggest with very great respect that the British and Irish Governments should commence preparatory work as soon as possible after the election on a new British-Irish agreement to replace and transcend the one which has failed and which, worse still, continues not only to keep the

children's teeth on edge, but to maintain tension where tension should not exist: between the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief because this is an Irish debate and I do not want to stop any hon. Members from the Province from speaking. However, as a Scot, I have a great interest at this time in the constitutional situation which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that opportunity often arises out of adversity.
We face difficulties in Northern Ireland. No one who has watched the past 20 years evolve or who has been a Member of this place over the past few years can fail to realise the enormous problems facing my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office who, over the years, have tried to find solutions to intractable problems. I would never criticise what Conservative Ministers have done over the past 13 years.
One of the problems in Scotland is that, if one tries to find solutions in isolation from United Kingdom constitutional problems, one often creates bigger problems than one set out to solve. The time has come to consider the whole of the United Kingdom and find constitutional answers suitable to all the United Kingdom.
We should not forget that 83 per cent. of the population of these islands lives in England. You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not say that they are English. Like everyone else, we recognise that many people from Scotland, Ireland and from parts of the former empire and the Commonwealth live in England. People living in England have a deep interest in the well-being and continuance of our United Kingdom. They want to see it functioning adequately and properly and to see removed from it the tensions that exist in Northern Ireland and, sadly, also in Scotland.
We can find answers to those problems only with the kind of good will demonstrated by the coming together of the Northern Ireland parties. I hope that we can find good will like that in Scotland. Anyone who imagines that we can find a solution that is acceptable to everyone has not lived with the Scottish or Northern Ireland dimensions. If he had, he would not talk such absolute rot.
There is no way in the west central belt of Scotland that the Conservative party can expect to form an administration at local government level. However, we do not suggest that there is something wrong with the structures or that we should have a say in the running of administrations there because we are a minority. Similarly, there are parts of the United Kingdom where the Labour party is not represented at local level or even at parliamentary level. We do not suggest in those circumstances that Labour should control such administrations.
We should consider this as a unique opportunity which should be grasped, after the general election, to consider the constitutional arrangements within the United Kingdom and find answers that can be made to work throughout the United Kingdom. As a Scot, I am aware of the difficulties and real demands for separation. Those demands are not imagined, and we must address them. We can address them adequately and properly only by considering the constitution of the United Kingdom and by maintaining the Union. I yield to no one in my defence


of the Union, because the benefits to all parts of the Union have been far greater than the sum of its different parts. It would be foolish for anyone to pretend otherwise.
The United Kingdom will be worth anything as an entity only while it is united. Divided we are nothing. Even in this great new modern Europe about which we have been talking, let us not be unrealistic: it is only because the United Kingdom speaks with the voice of the United Kingdom within Europe that we mean anything. Divided we would mean little.
That is why, within the context of Europe and in the context of the problems that we face in the constitutional parts of the United Kingdom, we should consider this to be a unique opportunity. That is why I wanted to participate in the debate. I speak as a Unionist to fellow Unionists. I speak unashamedly on behalf of the United Kingdom. As everyone knows, I regularly appear here in my native dress because I am unashamedly a Scot as well. That is why we must find the answers that suit all of us.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I will shortly be taking part in my fifth general election. In the previous four I was regularly, and without fail, asked by the public about my view and my party's view of the affairs of Northern Ireland. One of the depressing aspects for me of those past four elections is that, frankly, I was not able to offer a solution to those questioners. At the time, no one else could offer such solutions. Even more depressingly, the public in Great Britain have tended to accept that there was no solution and that we could only carry on muddling along as best we could and as we have.
It is a shame that there are not more hon. Members in the House for such an important debate on Northern Ireland. However, no one can have failed to be impressed by the two speeches from the two party leaders in Northern Ireland who come from very different historical traditions.

Mr. Kilfedder: There were three such speeches.

Mr. Carlile: I do apologise. There were three speeches from party leaders from Northern Ireland. We heard three speeches from the leaders of parties in Northern Ireland from very different historical perspectives. We have heard comments from those different perspectives from which we can draw encouragement. I feel great respect for what was said by those leaders tonight.
It may just be that the British public will have greater expectations in the forthcoming general election when they ask questions about Northern Ireland. It will be difficult, because it is always difficult in such discussions, not to answer in platitudes and not to use cliches about conciliation. However, although it is a word that has been rejected from time to time in the House, conciliation is now possible in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I should like to add my great regard for the Secretary of State, who has played a considerable part in the effort that has been made in recent years. He cannot get everything right—he is not perfect. He was once the chairman of the Conservative party, and that is clear evidence of his imperfections. However, in Northern Ireland, he has achieved a good deal in moving towards that conciliation which the British public are now beginning to expect.
I should like to say a brief word about the position of the Churches and religious leaders from the perspective of

somebody who represents a seat in Great Britain but who takes an interest in Northern Ireland. Church leaders have, of course, a very important moral role, although I believe not a political role, in the affairs of all countries, whatever the religion, creed, sect, or part of a religion. The responsibility of leading the polity is the responsibility of politicians. Politicians can cross religious divisions. I particularly congratulate politicians in Northern Ireland, sometimes representing small parties in difficult circumstances, who make it their business and their determination to cross those religious divides.
Many of us feel concerned from time to time by the effect of religious fervour on objective political judgment. That is why politicians have a far greater role to play than religious leaders.
We must also recognise that terrorists are criminals. An insight into the criminal mind is not easy to gain, because criminals come in so many different guises. There is no more sinister criminal guise than that of the terrorist. We must recognise that it is a vain hope that, even if politicians manage to reach a settlement of those extremely difficult issues which nobody should underestimate, there will be no more terrorists. There will still be some terrorists. Unfortunately, we must accept that there will be madmen who will regard it their business and their mission to continue terrorist activities. That will not mean that political discussions have necessarily failed. We will simply have to continue to try to isolate the terrorists, to reduce their effectiveness, to ensure that they are the most unpopular people in the community and, above all, to ensure that they are effectively policed, hunted down and brought to justice.
The irony which the terrorists never seem to realise is that, far from driving the British Government and the British security forces out of Northern Ireland, they have actually increased with every outrage the participation of the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland.
There must be a next stage after the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That stage must include investment and steps dramatically to reduce unemployment. It depends upon there being an agreement which, while fully recognising the constitutional facts, builds upon opportunities not differences. Some hon. Members believe that the next stage after the Anglo-Irish Agreement necessarily involves strengthening Dublin's role. That is not necessarily so. Hon. Members who signed an early-day motion two days ago, attacking the leader of my party, show a miserable misunderstanding of what is meant by a next stage. They now bear a great responsibility to demonstrate to the House that they, too, believe in conciliation and do not intend to obstruct that process. We look forward to hearing that message from them tonight.
Other measures can be taken for Northern Ireland. The improvement of the legislative process is needed. For example, the electricity privatisation legislation, which was of considerable importance to the people of Northern Ireland, was passed with minimum debate and with no opportunity to vote or to amend it. Of course there is a need—it goes almost without saying—to give the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity for legislation affecting them to be properly debated.
I return to the point at which I started. Many hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies yet who are in daily contact with members of the public in the Great Britain part of the United Kingdom have great expectations—possibly unrealistic


expectations—of the talks which are currently starting. We wish them well. We hope that the public will begin to discuss those issues as if the outrages which have taken place occurred not in some distant part but in a part of our own country, as much a part of our own country as Wolverhampton or Welshpool. It is only when the public examine the issues on that basis that they will give the message to all politicians from all parties in Northern Ireland that they want them to succeed and that they expect them to succeed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Because I represent all of Northern Ireland in another place, I stood today in the heart of Lurgan and I saw the damage that was done —an estimated £5 million—worth. The heart of Lurgan is destroyed. It came home to me particularly because the church in which my parents were married was also damaged today. As I stood in that special place for me, I wondered what the end would be. I also stood in Adelaide street today, in the city of Belfast, where £1·5 million of damage was done.
The House likes to hear things that please. I have been here for 22 years. It has never been my policy to say in the House anything different from what I say at home. I do not come here with a different face. I do not come here to say something that will please people. I come here to tell what my constituents demand that an honest representative says. I must say it tonight.
There is a perception in Northern Ireland—I know that my colleague the leader of the Ulster Unionists shares this view—that the Government, indeed, successive British Governments, have not the will to win the battle against the IRA. As a result, there is a feeling that one day the "Brits" as my constituents call them, will leave. Until that fear is laid to rest, the people of Northern Ireland cannot have confidence that the terrorists will be done with and that this Government or any Government who follow them have the will to defeat terrorism. Until that perception comes through, there will not be confidence in Northern Ireland.
I was recently reading what I said to the opening conference of the last talks, which are now dead. We are to have new talks. I said to the Secretary of State:
It is a fact that needs to be put clearly on record that the majority of the Unionist population in this Province is not really convinced that Her Majesty's Government has the will to win the battle against terrorism. Until that will is demonstrated, not just in condemnatory and graphic descriptions of the IRA's atrocities but by definite action which will strike at the very heart of terrorism, the majority of the population will not be prepared to put faith in the Government or grant to it trust and confidence. In short, "Actions speak louder than words." Why is it, people ask, that so soon after an atrocity like Glenanne—
the blowing up of a UDR centre—
the security forces can have a successful strike?
That was in the village of Coagh, where IRA men on a murder mission were brought to justice and there were killings.
When the people see an effective security policy being pursued by the Government then and only then will the Government have the response of confidence from the people.

We have the same thing now. We can simply change Glenanne to Teebane and Coagh to Coalisland. The same thing is repeated.
I am sorry that we do not have time to go over what we put to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, "I will not go into a hidey-hole. You can come back and I will give you a reasoned response to the proposals that you have put to me on the security front." We will welcome the opportunity to go back and talk as soon as possible about the proposals that we put to him.
The Government and the House must realise that the people who are doing the killing, bombing and murdering, those people who yesterday shot a man and killed him when he was driving a lorry, do not care about political talks. Does anyone in the House think that because John Hume, James Molyneaux, Ian Paisley and John Alderdice sit at a table, the terrorists will stop their killing? Let us disillusion ourselves. Let us come down to hard facts. Those people are not interested in politics, democracy or life. They are interested in carrying on criminal activities of the vilest sort.
Every time that it seems that something will stop the terrorists in their tracks, someone comes up with a proposal to give them oxygen. Reference has been made to clergy in the debate. Clergymen recently said that they would talk to the IRA. We will soon have a proposal: "Why not have them at the table? They are better at the table than away from it." We shall have a galaxy of people coming forward on a great rescue mission. By so doing, instead of discrediting the terrrorists, such people give them credibility. They will bring them to some conference table, if not the conference that the Secretary of State is convening.
As I said in the talks, no amount of political talking will deal with terrorism or the terrorists of Northern Ireland. Anyone who understands anything about republican terrorism knows what happened in the Irish Republic. After the treaty, the Republic faced the same situation. There was civil war. It was bloody: father fought son, and son fought brother. There came one man, called Kevin O'Higgins. He had the task of getting cosmos out of chaos. He did it, but he was butchered. He did it because he knew how republican terrorism operated. If the terrorists had thought that they could gain by the gun, they would have kept to the gun.
De Valera led the irregulars. He had one of his colleagues, Michael Collins, massacred. Close comrades, who had fought the British, fought one another. That terrorism was put down because there was a resolution, a determination and a will to do it. After that, peace came to the south of Ireland. There was a resurgence of IRA violence, but de Valera put it down in the same way.
Someone will have to grasp the problem of terrorism. Someone at the Dispatch Box—it does not matter which party they belong to—will have to show that there are enough guts, determination and resolution to deal with terrorism and to show terrorists, once and for all, that they cannot succeed. Terrorists do not believe that at present. They think that they will succeed and they are receiving encouragement from certain parts of the community.

Rev. William McCrea: In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said:
Terrorists are no nearer achieving their aims.


Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not because successive Governments have taken action? The Anglo-Irish Agreement helped the aims of the IRA. It is because of the fortitude of the good people of Ulster in their stand and their resolution against the IRA. That is why we are not on the Dublin road tonight.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The determination of the Ulster people is certainly the main factor in this business. The people on the streets of Lurgan and on Adelaide street today—sweeping up the glass, boarding up their windows and putting up signs saying "business as usual"—are the people who are keeping Ulster going. That is because they are fighting for the hearths, their homes, their families and their future, and I must emphasise that.
There seems to be a desire in some parts not to face up to the issues that we must face up to. When the leader of the party of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) visited Northern Ireland the other day, he castigated the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself but not in the language that the hon. and learned Member used in the House tonight, where it can be answered. The leader of the Alliance party called us all sorts of names at his conference, and included the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in his comments. If the Unionist leaders wanted to do anything else, the Unionist people would remove them. They would not be here. There have been many Unionist chiefs without indians in Northern Ireland.
I am only here because the people put me here. In a few days' time, they will have the opportunity to say, "You don't come back." I represent the genuine views of those people.
The talks took place because, immediately after the previous general election, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and I went to see the Secretary of State for Energy, who was then Chief Whip, to discuss the possibility of having talks. We went on month after month. The talks started here and went on to Stormont. We met the heads of the civil service and the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we went on and on. We were told by our people that we were fools, and they said, "Give up and forget about the talks." The leader of the Alliance party poured cold water on those talks and told us to forget them.
The present Secretary of State started to say things. We have recorded everything that he said. The right hon. Gentleman said that we would have talks and that there would be no dilution of United Kingdom sovereignty or damage to the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. He said that to Bangor chamber of commerce, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). The Secretary of State added:
Northern Ireland will not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people who live here. That has been the position in British law for forty years and it is reinforced by Article One of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
That is very interesting. I see that the people who support the agreement wanted to undercut even what they tried to sell. It was a bogus sale. He also said:
Majority desire for change in the status clearly does not exist at present and seems unlikely in the foreseeable future. That is the reality which I believe all constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland in practice accept.
That is the reality that the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic will have to accept. There can be no going back on that.
In his pilgrim's progress through Ulster, the Secretary of State went to the Methodist college on 6 December 1989. He said:
We have all to face the facts as they are now. The central political fact is that a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland wants to remain part of the United Kingdom. But it is also a fact that a minority would like to see Ireland united and the border removed. How do we resolve this fundamental difference? I accept that it is fundamental. The only way the matter can be decided in a democracy is to respect the wishes of the people. Their decision by a majority, to retain the Union, is entirely clear. Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK, unless and until there is a change of mind—and I see no sign or prospect of that in the foreseeable future. I believe passionately that the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland must be upheld.
The Secretary of State was spelling out what the facts meant. I believe that that is illuminating to a person who believes in the constitution of my Province and its legitimate right to exist. Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition point to the Anglo-Irish Agreement as if it were Ulster's constitution. The Ulster constitution does not rest on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which never became an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on a number of occasions, we have had exchanges along the lines to which he has referred. They were in the context of remarks which were made by the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. In alluding to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I was binding in the de facto recognition of the Government of the Republic of Ireland of the constitutional position in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the House should not rest our constitutional position on anything in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The Secretary of State also said in the House:
Although the constitutional question has often seemed: central to matters in Northern Ireland, I turn to it now in the hope of putting it to one side. We regard the position as clear. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in national and international law. It is part of the United Kingdom because that is the clear wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. There will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland unless and until a majority of the people there want it. That seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. I believe that most in this House, and I number myself among them, would wish to see the Union continue, but the principles of democracy and self-determination mean that the people of Northern Ireland must themselves be the final arbiters. By virtue of its constitution, the Republic of Ireland has since 1937 also claimed sovereignty over Northern Ireland. We do not accept or recognise that claim, which has no basis in our law or, equally important, in international law. That claim is, I know, seen by some in Northern Ireland, and in other parts of this country, as a major stumbling block to the development of constructive relationships. I do not regard it as helpful. Nor, however, do I believe that it should be a major preoccupation—for this reason: the Republic of Ireland has accepted, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that the status of Northern Ireland could be changed only with the consent of a majority of its people. In short, through that binding international treaty it has shown that it, too, supports the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination."—[Official Report, 5 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 1140.]
That was the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Foyle has said:
the harsh reality is that whether or not…Unionists…have the academic right to a veto on Irish unity, they have it as a matter of fact based on numbers.


So we can conclude tonight that the talks are not about the destruction of the Union but about getting a settlement in Northern Ireland, and, when that settlement has been achieved, about getting the relationship between new structures in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. They are now based on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I am sure that the Secretary of State is sick and tired listening to Unionists say, "We want an alternative to, and a replacement of, the agreement." We have never said anything else and that is why we are at the talks. Let that be clear to hon. Members in all parts of the House. We are at the talks because the Government said, "We shall consider an alternative to, and a replacement of, the Anglo-Irish Agreement."
I appreciate that, when Governments sign treaties, they continually say, "We shall hold to them." But I remember a Minister stating in the House, "We shall never change the poll tax," and a short while later it was changed. The ordinary people feel that there should be a higher degree of honesty. They believe that, when somebody says that he will not change something, he will stand by that decision. Unfortunately, politicians do not do that. I have not met many politicians in my 22 years who have not made changes.
My hon. Friends and I have laboured the point, but I do not want anyone to be under any illusion about why we arc there. We must deal with the entanglement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We cannot escape from that, and I am prepared to face it head on.
How can one have a neighbourly relationship if a neighbour claims one's property? Living next door to me is a neighbour who used to be a prominent member of the Alliance party. I do not know whether he went down the Damascus or some other road, but evidently he has fallen out with that party. He used to say, "Ian, you have a very fine lawn mower. Will you lend it to me?" I said I would lend it to him with pleasure. On another occasion he remarked, "I notice that you have an electric hedge cutter. I would like to cut my hedge, if you would lend it to me," —and I was willing to lend it to him.
If he looked over my hedge and said, "I own your house. I am going to put you, your wife and family out of your home," he would not borrow my lawn mower or hedgecutter again. There is no need for hon. Members to take a pious view about that. My reaction to such a state of affairs would represent a fact of life. The fact of life is that we have a Berlin wall, and it was not built by Ulster Unionists.
Let us get the matter straight. I have heard a strange history of Northern Ireland and what the people of Northern Ireland did to the nationalists when Stormont was founded. I was never a part of a Government in Stormont so I cannot be blamed for what the Government did there. I was leader of the opposition when Stormont finished, so I was on the opposition benches.
The Unionists appointed their members to a Council of All Ireland. The south refused to appoint anyone to that Council of All Ireland. If the nationalists had come to Stormont at the beginning, they would have had just the same privileges as anyone else elected to that House, but they chose not to come to the old Assembly.
Hon. Members need not hold this House up as a paragon of virtue, because we took a stand on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and this House voted for us to be thrown off every Committee of the House.

Mr. Hume: Does the hon. Gentleman know which is the second city of Northern Ireland? He may call it a different name from me, but he knows where it is. Will he explain how, for 70 years, a third of the population ran that city, despite the fact that they had only a third of the vote? How could that have been done fairly?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I had nothing whatsoever to do with that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I was not even living at the time—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about discrimination, I shall talk about it. Let us look at the facts. We have heard a lot tonight about history and hon. Members have said that nothing should be imposed. Was not the Anglo-Irish agreement imposed on us? The hon. Member for Foyle need not point his finger at the Front Bench, because he encouraged the Irish Government.
Some Northern Ireland voters have told me that there was a time when they did not need the Unionists. But now that they are in trouble, they come back and say that they want us. I was surprised that the spokesman for the Liberal Democratic party, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, said that he did not know what to say at the election, because at the last election we had that glorious Anglo-Irish Agreement that was meant to settle everything and give us peace, stability and reconciliation.
There has been a rising tide of slaughter, with 33 deaths this year alone, since the agreement came into force. What has the agreement brought? The fact that we are debating this matter tonight proves that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a failure. Many hon. Members have told me that, if they had to vote for the agreement again, they would not do, so because it did not do what was promised.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that, during the visit of the leader of the Liberal Democrats to Northern Ireland, he chose to create an atmosphere that would not be conducive to talks by bad-mouthing every Unionist Member he could find? He said that he wanted to sustain the life of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, failed though it has, and—more than that—that he wanted to build on it. Does my hon. Friend agree that to build on foundations that have been proved to be unsteady would not be a wise course for anyone to take?

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is even more unwise to build on foundations that are rejected by the electorate.
The Unionists played the democratic card. They resigned their seats and fought an election. They brought 250,000 people on to the streets and kept them in order. What did the House do? Hon. Members snubbed their nose at them and said, "We do not care, we do not need you." They will find that they will need the Protestant people and every law-abiding Roman Catholic and Protestant if they are to deal with the trouble. The Secretary of State knows that the trouble could get seriously out of hand and, instead of talking to elected representatives, he might find that gunmen had replaced them. He had better make up his mind whether he wants democracy or the rule of the gun to stand in Northern


Ireland. It is a serious matter, as anyone from Northern Ireland knows. That is why we asked for the debate, and joined others in doing so.
We are told about the wonderful united Ireland that we are asked to consider—

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way as I want to make this point.
When Ireland was divided, what was the proportion of Protestants in the Irish Republic? Some 10·4 per cent. of the total population were Protestants. In 1926, the proportion fell to 7·4 per cent.; in 1936 it was 6·6 per cent.; in 1941 it was 5·7 per cent. Between 1911 and 1926, the numbers of the Protestant faith fell by 106,000. From 1926 to 1936, that figure dropped by a further 26,233. However, the number of Roman Catholics rose by 22,651. In 1961, Protestants represented 3·7 per cent. of the population. That figure has decreased and is now less than 3 per cent. What does that mean? It means that the Protestant population in the south of Ireland has decreased by more than 70 per cent. It is no wonder that Protestants in Northern Ireland are fearful when they discover that fact, which has to be faced.
The Roman Catholic population in Northern Ireland is increasing. When I entered the House, a Tory Minister said to me, "It is all right—the birth rate will take you all into a united Ireland." He said it as though Protestants did not also breed. We will not remove the problem simply by talking about the birth rate or by changing the electoral system of voting.
The electoral system of voting was changed and our councils were done away with, as was Stormont. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that it would be the end of the Irish problem when Stormont was dissolved, but it was only the beginning. On that day, I said that what we had experienced was a mere Sunday school picnic and now we would see the real release of evil.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery sent his friend over to Northern Ireland. I was interested to see what he said. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, Lord Holme, said:
It is very welcome that the Dublin Government seems to be prepared to contemplate amendment of Articles 2 and 32 of the Irish constitution.
The challenge to Unionist leaders is to work out what they are prepared, amongst their equally cherished beliefs, to surrender in return".
That is an immoral, criminal and illegal claim.

Mr. Alex Cathie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way as I want to put it clearly on the record tonight that the spokesman told me that was to surrender the Union because the immoral—

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I will not give way.
My Unionist friends and I have to give up our cherished inheritance. Those were the sort of men that were sent over to Northern Ireland by the Liberal Democrats to tell us to surrender that.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to one who has not had the opportunity of

speaking in the debate. Instead, I have had to listen to interference from those who had the chance to speak and should have used it to speak sense.
Does my hon. Friend understand the fears of the Protestant community? In recent days, a part-time member of the UDR was the subject of an attempted murder by four IRA personnel in the county of Fermanagh. One of them was shot by the UDR man and three were arrested in the Irish Republic. I have been told that one of the three—up on an attempted murder charge —has been released by the Irish Republican authorities on £20,000 bail, yet that same person is being sought for the murder of Gillian Johnson and the attempted murder of one of my constituents. That is the kind of justice that we can expect fom Dublin.

Rev. Ian Paisley: All we have to do is look at the sad saga of extradition. I have with me a list of all the extradition cases that have been refused. We were promised great co-operation, but I can give my list of refusals to the House. We are dealing with hard realities. I have put proposals, and I will put more proposals to the conference when it meets. I believe that it should meet. We must face up to these issues, but we will get nowhere if we sweep things under the carpet.
I will not ask a foreign state in any plebiscite to decide how I live as a citizen of this United Kingdom. I say that my country has a right to say how I live. No foreign country will tell the majority of people in Northern Ireland how they should live. The Anglo-Irish Agreement which was imposed on us has failed.
If we have the will, we can get an agreement. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has talked about a larger agreement that takes in the whole of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members must realise what we have gone through in Northern Ireland. We have already shown the former Prime Minister our list of matters to discuss: she admitted that it was a good one. We are anxious to have them discussed.
The House should remember that it was the Dublin Government who brought our deliberations to an end by holding a meeting on 16 July. That got us nowhere. Perhaps this time common sense will prevail, perhaps wisdom will prevail, and perhaps we will get a settlement.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I apologise to those who have been here since 7 o'clock but who have failed to get a chance to participate, especially the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who has tried vainly to catch the Chair's eye and who has sought to play both ends against the middle by wearing green and orange.
I apologise too to the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), who is an old friend of mine. He was my opponent the first time I fought a parliamentary election, in 1970. He holds one record that is to his credit: I polled more votes in 1970 than I have polled in the three elections since then, all of which I won, but he beat me in 1970 by 30,000. I wish him a happy retirement, and I am sorry that he has failed to catch the Chair's eye on what is possibly his last opportunity to speak in such a debate.
I also apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who did not manage to speak in the debate. I am sure that the House, like me, looks forward to his future contributions on Northern Ireland affairs.
I pay my respects to the Secretary of State, and I am sorry that he missed our debate on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman may have read my valedictory tribute to him on Tuesday.

Mr. Brooke: I read the hon. Gentleman's account. During that summer I saw 10 hon. Members at cricket grounds around the country. He was the only Labour Member I saw, and I shall always remember him for it.

Mr. Marshall: I am pleased to hear that. I was about to say as a final valedictory that, if he wants to attend Grace road during the coming cricket season, I shall be prepared to pay his entrance fee and that of his son if his son still entertains an interest in cricket.
I thank the Secretary of State for opening the debate in the thoughtful and sincere way that has characterised his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Office. He said that the debate would be wide-ranging and reflective. That is an apt description of the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
I am a little sad that the concluding speech by a Member from the Province showed the problems and difficulties that any British politician will face in seeking to reconcile the differences between the two communities in the Province. It also showed the great hurdles that we shall all have to jump if we are to bring lasting peace to that unhappy part of the United Kingdom. I hope that, at some time in the future, we shall hear a spokesperson for the DUP who offers hope rather than despair, who looks to the future rather than to the past and to the time when both communities will be reconciled and working together rather than living in the divisions of the past and seeking to perpetuate them into the future.
I agree with the Secretary of State about the achievements of the people of the Province. He mentioned science and education and I thought that he was about to mention rocketry and the first Irishman on the moon. The list of achievements that he brought to the attention of the House shows the great contribution that people in the Province have made not just to the United Kingdom but to the welfare of the world. I echo the Secretary of State's tributes to the security forces. On these occasions, we have always given our support and praise to the security services, and we shall continue to do so in the remaining weeks of opposition. When we form the Government after the next election, we shall be in a better and more positive position to give the security forces real assistance and help.
I also agree with the Secretary of State about the divisions in the community. He spoke about the difference of views on constitutional issues and about different national aspirations. He said that those differences introduced an international context to Northern Ireland. He was wise to make that point and, although he went over it quickly, its significance was not lost on me. Later in his speech, he linked it to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. His analysis that the differences introduce an international context is correct. When Labour forms the Government, we shall continue to see the problem in those terms and to seek to introduce a solution which takes that context into account.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) gave a pessimistic view of Irish history. I do not share his

general pessimism, although I fear that he may be right in one specific area—that he will not get a chair at the talks, although I am sure that he was not expressing pessimism in that narrow personal context. I reinforce the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the hon. Member for North Down is not correct when he says that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution legitimise the IRA. Nothing legitimises the IRA, and we have to make that clear beyond peradventure.
In a thought-provoking speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle was surely right to emphasise that diversity can be enriching rather than divisive.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley—I am feeling faint, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall suspend the sitting for five minutes.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr. Marshall: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that that was the only way in which I could attract a full House!
I was about to comment on the contributions of other hon. Members, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, I fear that I cannot do so. Let me simply put on record Labour's position, which will mean reiterating many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
In opposition, we have continued to support policies that seek to achieve peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and we shall pursue the same objectives when we are in government. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, we share the anger and the anguish that arise after each terrorist outrage, and we pay tribute to all those in the Province who seek, in the face of all the difficulties, to lead normal lives.
I say to all the people of Northern Ireland that terrorism will not succeed. No terrorist group can bomb, kill or maim its way to the conference table. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has made it clear that we support the Secretary of State's three-strand approach to the talks. We look forward to reactivating those talks after the election, and to using all our best endeavours to reach a successful conclusion.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for their kind remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have worked with my right hon. Friend throughout his time in his present post, and I look forward to working with him in government in the future; I found their remarks gracious and appropriate.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North began by making it clear that violence was futile. This morning, I—like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley)—stood in the middle of the high street in Lurgan. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that the heart of Lurgan was damaged. In one sense, it was appallingly damaged: 150 yards of shops on both sides of the main street will probably have to come down. Yet, in


another sense, the heart of Lurgan was not damaged. The people were in their shops, the fishmonger had set up a stall and the pub bore an "open for business" sign. People were going about their business.
Violence is futile. I could not help making a contrast between two events. I had been chairing discussions in Parliament buildings between representatives of the four constitutional parties about briefings that we all agreed should take place. I went from that constitutional political activity to the high street in Lurgan, and the contrast was extreme—the one giving hope, and building a better future for the Province; the other bringing despair, destruction and desperation, going nowhere. In Lurgan I said, as others said before me—both Opposition spokesmen have said it today—that no one shall bomb his way to the conference table. I repeat that in the House tonight.
The security policy that we pursue has to be a security policy within the rule of law. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that there is a perception that the security policy is not effective. I totally absolve him of the charge, but he knows that sometimes that phrase is used as a euphemism, meaning that we should let the security forces go out and kill whomever they fancy killing—anyone against whom they have suspicion. That would reduce the security forces to the level of the terrorist, and we shall not permit that to happen, because we are a Government, a Parliament and a country of the rule of law.
We shall not allow that to happen for a second reason, too. To allow it to happen would be to destroy the confidence of the community in the security forces. Confidence in the way in which the security forces do their job is not an optional extra, or a veneer that one adds to try to get through difficult situations from time to time. If the community cannot have confidence in the way in which the security forces act within the law, the community will not be prepared to offer the security forces its support, and thus the security policy itself will be undermined.
I am happy to reaffirm to the House our commitment to the security forces. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North —that some people have a perception that we are not committed, and that we do not have the will to win. I look him in the eye from this Dispatch Box and tell him that I have the will to win. We have the will to win, no matter how long it takes. This House has the will to win.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, "I am a Brit,"—and he is. But he was saying something more profound when he used those words. We hear spokesmen for Sinn Fein saying, "We want the Brits out," and that phrase gets applied to the security forces and to British Ministers—even to me, although I was born in the Belmont road. But the phrase misses the point, which is that it is not we who constitute the British presence in Northern Ireland. It is the people who constitute that presence, and will continue to constitute it until such time as they democratically choose to change their minds—if ever that day should come.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) talked about peace walls, and pointed out that there were 13 of them in Belfast. I am now in my seventh year as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and one of the things that has struck me over that time is how easy it is to erect peace walls and how difficult it is to get rid of them. There is no mechanism in Northern Ireland to review peace walls and to decide that their time has gone. They tell us something

about the insecurity of the Province. Walls exist not only in bricks and mortar but in hearts and minds. They offer security—there is no doubt about that—but eventually they imprison. They prevent new ideas, new thoughts and new relationships, and they prevent people from observing the changes taking place around them. I make no partisan point, because everyone can be imprisoned behind walls.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister will recall that I referred to the fact that for 20 years I have led the opposition to religious apartheid in education, and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the support that he has given to the cause of integration.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If we can persuade without threat our young people to grow up unburdened by some of the mythology that affected us as we were growing up, the prospects for the Province will be brighter.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) stressed two points. He said that he thought that the Secretary of State and I agreed with him, and I confirm that we do. The talks are not peace talks, and he was right to stress that. He was right to stress it because it is true and also because otherwise, they would lead to expectations in the community and in the nation which cannot be fulfilled and which may potentially be counter-productive as a consequence.
The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that the inter-party tension among politicians in Northern Ireland is lower now than possibly at any time in the past 20 years. That is a tribute to him and his colleagues, to the hon. Member for Foyle and his colleagues, to the hon. Member for North Down and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his colleagues.
It is a pity that more people do not visit Northern Ireland. It is also a pity that more hon. Members do not visit Northern Ireland and do not attend these debates because if they did, they would learn the truth of what I am saying, but they would also learn to salute the courage of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland who in their daily lives face threats and pressures which the rest of us, thank God, do not have to face.
Violence in Northern Ireland can stop tomorrow. It will stop the day the terrorists realise that they cannot win, that they will not win and that they will not be permitted to win. They cannot be permitted to win, because, if they were, the nature of our democracy would be fundamentally changed in the process.
Security policy alone will not be enough. It is the combination of security policy and political, economic and social policy, together with the resilience of the people of Northern Ireland, which will make the difference.
We look forward to more talking, to talking before a general election and to talking after a general election. I am hopeful about the talks but they must be characterised by a willingness on the part of everyone involved to explain what they mean, what they stand for and what they aspire to, and by a willingness to listen to what others mean, aspire to and want to see achieved. There should also be a willingness to accommodate the views of others, to make hard choices and to balance the short term against the long term and against the ultimate safeguard that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
I have confidence in this Government's contribution and that of the Irish Government, to that process. The


events of the past 12 months have massively increased and concentrated my confidence in the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland to contribute constructively to that process.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to paragraph ( 5 ) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), to put the deferred Question on supplementary estimates, 1991–92 (Class II Vote 2).

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £27,939,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.) and the Order [28 February].

ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 an additional number not exceeding 75 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1992–93 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1993 a number not exceeding 65,400 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1992–93 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1993 a number not exceeding 165,645 all ranks be maintained for Army

Service, a number not exceeding 121,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 79,600 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 6,970 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

ESTIMATES, 1992–93 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1993 a number not exceeding 88,620 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 19,350 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 2,800 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

ESTIMATES EXCESSES, 1990–91

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £418,563,447·96 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 224.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1991–92

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £3,031,401,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 226.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the three resolutions this day relating to supplementary estimates 1991–92 and estimates, excesses 1990–91 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL

Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1991 and 1992: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Shipping Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. David Shaw: I have spoken in a number of debates on the British shipping industry, and I am particularly pleased to be able to address the House tonight again on that issue which is of considerable importance to my constituency of Dover and to Deal.
Dover has a long history as a port and my constituents have a strong interest in our local and national shipping industry. Currently, Dover's port and ferries provide employment for about 7,000 people, of whom 70 per cent. are residents of Kent. Many live in Dover and Deal and in the adjoining area. A number of seafarers also live in my constituency and work on British ships which sail from other ports in the United Kingdom. The House will be aware that our local ferry industry in Dover has been a tremendous success story, with ever-increasing numbers of passengers and freight tonnage carried between this country and the continent.
However, the current position of our national shipping industry causes my constituents considerable concern. The importance of our shipping industry must surely not be in question. It is important for trade. Our nation has lived by its skills at trade for many centuries. Our balance of payments surplus from shipping is currently about £2·5 billion, with gross earnings of £4 billion. It has also been estimated that that balance of payments surplus could be considerably increased; many in the shipping industry believe that it could be increased to £10 billion over a period with increased investment in British ships.
Our shipping industry is also important for defence. We have seen two wars since the Government have been in office—the Falklands and the Gulf wars. The British merchant marine had important roles to play in both wars in supporting our forces.
We also expect that, in future, if our forces are required to go into action again—of course we all hope not, but from a practical point of view we must be ready for the worst—mobile forces will probably be required, and out-of-area forces in particular. In the circumstances, we must be aware that the British merchant marine will have an even more important role in supporting our forces than perhaps it had in the past. Our shipping industry is also important for the transport of passengers as well as goods. We, especially we in Dover, must recognise that not all goods can go through the channel tunnel when it eventually opens. Therefore, our shipping industry, in particular the port and ferry industry in Dover, is vital to the national interest.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will appreciate that my constituents in Lame depend very much on ferry services between Lame and Stranraer, and they are equally concerned at the reduction in the British fleet. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something must be done urgently so that we can introduce more young people into shipping and ensure that they have proper training right through to officer level?

Mr. Shaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a vital industry for the nation and for his constituency as well. The industry needs to recruit a considerable number of

young people to make sure that we have sufficient officers and ratings in future. It is through large numbers of young people joining the industry that we will make sure that Britain is again a leading seafaring nation, with modern ships and well-trained young people crewing them. The hon. Gentleman shares my concern about the decline in the number of ships and tonnage. We should consider the reasons for that decline.
It is certainly wrong for some hon. Members to say that the Government are responsible for the decline in the British merchant marine. The decline started well before the Government came to office. The start of the 1970s saw the beginning of the decline in the British merchant marine. The reasons for that are not only that Britain's share of world trade was declining but factors beyond our control, such as decisions made in the United Nations, supported by British Governments and by many other Governments.
Those decisions affected the extent of cross-trading. In consequence, developing countries ensured that their own shipping fleets had an increased share of world trade and trade from their shores. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development code on shipping brought into being a group which resulted in many developing countries trying to obtain 40:40:20 ratios for trade, whereby 40 per cent. was reserved for the developing countries and only 20 per cent. was to be allocated to cross-traders. Of course, Britain has expanded its merchant marine over many centuries, based on cross-trading.
Also, during the 1970s the Soviet and communist nations expanded their merchant marines with considerable subsidies, and built unprofitable ships which would not succeed in any market-oriented economy. In consequence, our shipping fleet faced considerable competition.
The British merchant marine was also not helped by the United Kingdom economy in the 1970s. The economy did not go through a very good phase. There was a lack of economic growth and, therefore, a lack of growth in trade, which did not help our merchant marine.
The then Labour Government took desperate measures to build subsidised ships. We had the curious situation that several ships were built in British shipyards only to be sold under subsidy to Poland and used by the communist regime in Poland to undercut British ships in the markets in which our ships operated. All that, combined with convenience flagging and some ships built under subsidised tax regimes in overseas countries, meant that our merchant marine had a difficult 1970s. It is no wonder that the decline has continued.
It is also worth noting that the 1970s was a bad decade not only because there was a significant decline in the merchant marine but because, in the 1970s, British Governments did not address safety problems as they should have been addressed. Therefore, it is particularly pleasing that, in their Merchant Shipping Act 1988, the present Government introduced safety measures which have pleased all my constituents who work on our ferries in Dover. Indeed, in Britain our ships are now much safer than many foreign ships which call at our ports. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that issue in his reply.
The decline in our ships in Great Britain has also led to the problem referrred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). There is a reduced number of ratings and the number of people entering the industry in recent


years has not been at a level that will sustain a satisfactory number of officers and ratings for the decade to come. I am pleased that the recruitment of officers has recently stabilised, but I urge the Government carefully to consider employment in our shipping industry and to come up with policies that facilitate training and improve the numbers of people who enter our industry in the years ahead.
One should also draw attention to the many measures taken by the Government which have been helpful to the shipping industry. The economic growth that we have seen in the 1980s has resulted in considerably improved standards of living in Britain. In consequence, our industry has expanded in terms not only of exports but of imports. To the shipping industry, both exports and imports are of particular importance.
Economic growth has brought more trade which at least has meant that the decline in our shipping industry has been less sharp than it might have been. Of particular interest to Dover has been the shift in the Government's policies from direct to indirect taxation and lower rates of income tax. Lower rates of income tax have led to increased use of Dover ferries. After every reduction in income tax, there has been a considerable expansion in the number of passengers travelling on Dover ferries.
I am also pleased to draw attention to the fact that the present Government have helped seafarers in the taxation of their overseas earnings. Section 45 of the Finance Act 1991 is particularly welcome to seafarers because it gives them better relief in certain circumstances against taxation of their overseas earnings. The new safety measures to which I referred earlier have increased the public's confidence in our ferries and our shipping industry. By increasing public confidence, we ensure that more use is made of the ferries between Dover and the continent.
However, I should also mention one measure that has not been helpful. It is the Treasury's idea of fiscal neutrality. The Treasury has been too theoretical in its approach to capital allowances. Perhaps the computer model that it uses does not sufficiently consider the risk factors involved in investing in British industry, especially the shipping industry. If risk factors were taken into account in the Treasury model, the cash flow cost of a ship would be considered more carefully in relation to the risk that the shipowner had to bear. The cash flow cost of a ship is borne up front, yet the tax relief is spread over many years—far too many. The tax relief needs to be reconciled more closely with the cash flow cost on day one.
Our shipping industry is even facing problems from our European Community partners. Evidence is emerging that some EC countries are abusing the principle of a level playing field and giving considerable benefits to their shipowners and seafarers. Those countries are encouraging their shipping industries unfairly when compared with the British shipping industry. Some EC countries, and some European countries outside the EC, have been giving some form of subsidy, through reliefs on payroll taxes and on the equivalent of our national insurance.
The Department of Transport should carefully monitor what those countries are doing and should set up a monitoring system in close co-operation with the General

Council of British Shipping and employees' representatives so that we can ensure that British shipping is not unfairly prejudiced by the actions of other EC member states.
The Government should also consider other measures to support our shipping industry. We must have more investment in the industry, and we must remember that investment is determined by profitability and cash flow. A careful examination must take place to ensure that the industry is profitable and has a positive cash flow. That is how we can ensure that more jobs are created in the industry. A return to economic growth in this country is clearly crucial. We must ensure that that growth results in considerable investment in shipping.
We must take firm action against convenience flagging. We should not allow ships to be flagged under foreign registers, and we should try to bring many ships back on to the United Kingdom register. We should also prevent ships from being flagged coley for tax reasons in overseas registers. We should not hesitate to use safety regulations to prevent subsidised and unsafe foreign-flag ships from using our ports.
Also, we should encourage the Treasury to adopt the tax measures that I mentioned earlier, and to introduce a more favourable capital allowance regime. I strongly support a 25 per cent. straight line write-off, which would ensure that British ships had a tax write-off over four years. That would reconcile the need for cash flow and tax allowances to be more closely aligned.
I would also support an examination of the question whether it would be appropriate for the employer's national insurance contribution to be restricted in the same way as the employee's contribution. The employer's rate of national insurance should not continue at the same rate after the employee's contribution levels off.
Those measures are small in total cost, but they are important and should be considered. If they cannot be considered in time for the Budget next Tuesday, they should remain on the agenda for early action if the Treasury finds that the economy and Exchequer finances allow early action to be taken.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. Those of us who know my hon. Friend are aware that he has taken considerable interest in this subject during his time in the House and that, on many occasions, he has lobbied Ministers about it.
I shall do my best to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend. However, he is aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement next week and it is not for us to try to anticipate what may form part of that statement. A number of my hon. Friend's suggestions relate to fiscal matters, but obviously they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
As the Minister with responsibility for shipping, I can say that the Government fully recognise the important contribution that is made to our country by the British merchant fleet and by the men and women who serve within it. On the one hand, that fleet provides an economic


contribution to the country from trade and invisible earnings and, on the other, it can be called upon to play an important strategic role in our national defence.
Given the constituency of my hon. Friend, it is not surprising that he dealt at length with the role of the ferry companies. I am tremendously impressed at the way in which those companies have improved their services. Nowadays, travelling on a ferry is like going on a mini-cruise. That bodes well for the future of the ferry industry, which will face competition problems.
My hon. Friend said that we are especially reliant on shipping as an island nation, and that is well known to us. We are reliant on it not only for trade, but for the carriage of passengers, particularly to the continent. There is no doubt that the channel tunnel will offer strong competition to the ferry operators. It remains to be seen how they will adjust to that competition, but it is clear that the major operators are already planning for the future with newer, larger ships and by offering improved facilities both on board and on shore. There is no doubt that the traveller —the consumer—has already reaped the benefit of that competition.
We should be proud of the status that we hold in the maritime world. If one looks beyond the headline figures of United Kingdom registered tonnage, it is obvious that Britain is still a key player in the shipping industry. In total, British individuals and companies have an ownership or management interest in ships totalling some 41 million deadweight tonnes—or six per cent. of total world tonnage. In addition, the City is home to many international shipowners as well as an important centre of maritime insurance. I doubt that that would continue to be so under any other than a Conservative Government. It is important to remember that when considering our future as a maritime nation and the future of our maritime industry.
The headquarters of the International Maritime Organisation is located in London. It now has 136 states as members. The IMO is a highly respected international body, responsible for maritime regulation. The siting of the IMO in London demonstrates Britain's continuing high standing within the maritime world. The IMO has made great progress in creating safer and cleaner shipping lanes throughout the world to the benefit of ship owners, seafarers, manufacturers, consumers and the environment.
I am proud to say that the United Kingdom has taken a leading role in those initiatives and has been prepared, where necessary, to take a very firm stand against the less rigorous attitudes which certain IMO members are sometimes tempted to adopt. We are, for example, currently and forcefully arguing against the suggestion that some countries may wish to dilute the provisional agreement, secured last year, to phase in new stability regulations for existing roll on/roll off passenger ferries. Those new regulations arise, of course, from the investigations carried out into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. To ignore the results of those investigations would be to show a completely unacceptable disregard for the safety of ferry passengers.
My hon. Friend should note that we cannot rule out the possibility of taking unilateral action on this front if satisfactory agreement cannot be reached at the IMO. I hope that that goes some way towards convincing my hon. Friend of the seriousness with which the Government take the whole issue of safety. We would not want to do anything that discriminated against British flagged vessels,

so we would be looking at all vessels operating in British ports. The Government do not underestimate the importance of the shipping industry.
We appreciate that the size of the fleet has declined in the recent past. As my hon. Friend suggests, there are many reasons for the decline. Changing trading patterns, the emergence of new shipping powers, and the development of new, more sophisticated technology have all played a part. Nor is the United Kingdom alone in having been affected by those changes. Since 1981, the European Community as a whole has seen a decline of about 50 per cent. in gross registered tonnage.
At the same time, the industry is still recovering from the worldwide slump which prevailed for most of the last decade. That was a time of falling freight rates and over-capacity, partly caused by the subsidies which were poured into shipbuilding and encouraged investment in uneconomic tonnage, as my hon. Friend ably pointed out. Conditions have now improved, but fierce competition has led to major rationalisation in the industry. A number of companies have diversified into more profitable areas and some shipowners have left the industry completely.
Competition remains fierce, but a joint Government-industry working party which reported in late 1990 concluded that the British shipping industry was "now lean and fit" and prepared to meet the challenges of the coming years.
I have spent some time putting the position of the merchant fleet in context. I do not apologise for that. When people speak about the declining British fleet, it is too often forgotten that the British shipping industry remains vigorous and forward-looking,
It is essential that that message is stressed time and again, for we shall not get people to go into the industry if we hear nothing but doom and gloom and prophecies about things going wrong. A more forward-looking attitude, with a more confident case being put across, is welcomed by the industry. We are not complacent. We recognise that the continued decline of the United Kingdom register must have wider ramifications, and we have taken a number of positive steps to try to reverse that trend.
I mentioned earlier the joint working party which met in 1990. Its task was to examine the current state of the industry and to identify ways in which the competitiveness of British shipping could be improved. It reported its findings in September 1990, making five major recommendations which we and the industry are pursuing.
Good progress has been made. We have already introduced simplified procedures for the type approval of ships equipment. We have also consulted widely on officer nationality, and I hope to come forward with regulations very shortly.
On cabotage, the House will know that we have fought long and hard in the EC to bring about the liberalisation of coastal trade. We will continue to press the case, and we hope that it can be resolved during the current Portuguese presidency. If not, I assure my hon. Friend that, when the United Kingdom assumes the presidency later this year, the subject will be very high indeed on our agenda. It has been on the agenda for far too long. It is time it was off the agenda and agreement reached.
Other recommendations need primary legislation to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts. It is our firm intention to come forward with legislation at the earliest suitable opportunity.
Action on training is mainly for the industry. A training task force has been created to identify future manpower needs and to ensure that those needs are met. At the same time, the Government continue to offer financial assistance with the costs of training officer cadets and providing experienced officers with higher qualifications. The scheme has been extremely successful, increasing annual cadet recruitment from a serious low of 162 in 1987—I accept the point that my hon. Friend made about that—to more than 500 at the end of the last academic year.
The joint working party looked primarily at the economic aspects of the shipping industry. I briefly alluded to the defence role of the merchant fleet. That is a vital area which we have not overlooked. We all know what a vital role was played by our merchant ships at the time of the Falklands crisis, and I cannot pay too high a tribute to the skills and courage of the British seafarers who manned those ships.
It is understandable that concern should be expressed about the size of the fleet having declined since then. Hon. Members can, however, be assured that we monitor the fleet's capability to support our armed forces in times of crisis. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced that we were undertaking a thorough review of the subject. This has been a complex task, not least because of dramatic political changes that have occurred internationally. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the subject is being given the full and careful consideration that it deserves.
Another subject that my hon. Friend raised was the growth of the so-called "flags of convenience". Those registers can and do offer an easy way out for shipowners who are, in some cases, prepared to compromise on safety matters in order to cope with increasing costs and competition. There is little doubt that the safety records of those vessels cannot compare with those on the United Kingdom register, and the matter is of considerable concern.
We have publicly condemned the low standards which some registers are content to apply and have called for

action to address the problem. For example, the more rigorous use of port state control would go a long way towards improving the safety record of the international shipping industry, particularly if it were combined with effective sanctions. Port state control has already been used to good effect in the United Kingdom. We are the only nation that consistently exceeds the agreed target figure of inspecting 25 per cent. of foreign vessels visiting our ports. In 1990, we inspected 34·4 per cent., and we have set ourselves an internal target of not less than 30 per cent. a year. I look forward to that record continuing.
It has also been suggested that we should refuse access to British ports to vessels that do not meet the same standards as our own. Such an idea may seem radical and clearly needs further thought. However, although we fully support the importance of maintaining a liberal shipping policy, we consider that freedom of access to national waters must be backed by compliance with proper safety standards, and we are committed to ensuring that that principle is given practical effect.
I realise that many countries offer wide subsidies to support their national shipping industries. But it is clear that such policies have the negative effect of distorting the market and of encouraging investment in unprofitable areas. We have seen evidence of that in the 1970s and 1980s, when investment grants led to overtonnage and many of the problems from which the industry is only just emerging today.
Instead of matching subsidy with subsidy, we should prefer to see such distortions removed so that companies can compete on equal economic grounds. My hon. Friend should be assured that we are continuing to press through the appropriate bodies—the EC and OECD—for the removal of subsidies and unfair aids to shipping.
I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we shall look carefully at monitoring the points that he asks us to monitor, and I shall write to him in the near future.

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.